Revision as of 05:42, 30 April 2012 editBruceGrubb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,222 edits →The James passage← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:19, 30 April 2012 edit undoReject censorship (talk | contribs)7 edits removing POV pushing by Catholic fundamentalistsNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
]'']] | ]'', the only Josephus work which includes references to Jesus.]] | ||
The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century ]-] ] include references to ''']''' and the ].{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54-57}}{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284-285}} Josephus' '']'', written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books ] and ] and a reference to ] in Book ].{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54-57}}{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|p=12}} | |||
The overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in ] of the ''Antiquities'' to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=83}}{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54-57}}{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284-285}}{{sfn|Bauckham|1999|pp=199-203}}{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134-141}} Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in ] of the ''Antiquities'' to the imprisonment and death of ] to be also authentic.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}}{{sfn|Bromiley|1982|pp=694-695}}{{sfn|White|2010|p=48}} | |||
Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in ] of the ''Antiquities'' to the execution of Jesus by ], a passage usually called the '']''.{{sfn|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992a|pp=38-41}}{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54-57}} The general scholarly view is that while the ''Testimonium Flavianum'' is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation,{{sfn|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992a|pp=38-41}}{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104-108}}{{sfn|Evans|2001|p=316}}{{sfn|Wansbrough|2004|p=185}}{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}} Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear<ref>Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Robert McLachlan Wilson, ''New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and Related Writings'', page 490 (James Clarke & Co. Ltd, 2003). ISBN 0-664-22721-X</ref> there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the ''Testimonium'' by Josephus would have looked like.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}} | |||
The references found in ''Antiquities'' have no parallel texts in the other work by Josephus such as the '']'', written 20 years earlier, but some scholars have provided explanations for their absence.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=826}} A number of variations exist between the statements by Josephus regarding the deaths of James and John the Baptist and the ] accounts.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}}{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=143–145}} Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the New Testament accounts, not differ from them.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}}{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|p=130}}{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=143–145}} | |||
{{Jesus}} | {{Jesus}} | ||
''']''' (c.37 – 100, also known as ''Yosef ben Matityahu'', ] יוסף בן מתתיהו, Joseph son of Matthias) was a renowned 1st-century ]. Despite being a Roman apologist, his writings are seen as providing an important historical and cultural background for the era described in the ]. Books 18 to 20 of the ''Antiquities of the Jews'' are the most important in this regard.<ref>{{cite book|title=Flavius Josephus|author=], Steve Mason|publisher=Brill Academic Publishers|year=1999}}</ref> Josephus was fluent in ], Hebrew and Greek. | |||
==The three passages== | |||
===James the brother of Jesus=== | |||
]]] | |||
{{cquote2|And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.<ref>Flavius Josephus: ''Antiquities of the Jews'' ] Text at ]</ref>}} | |||
His writings are considered important secular historical documents that could, if genuine, shed light on the ].<ref name=FeldHata55 /><ref name=Maier285 /> Josephus' '']'', written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to ] in Book 18.<ref name=FeldHata55 /><ref>''Josephus: The Essential Works'' by Flavius Josephus and Paul L. Maier 1995 ISBN 082543260X page 12</ref> Scholars are divided over the references, for example ] has noted that "the parallel sections of Josephus's '']'' make no mention of Jesus" <ref>L. Michael White, ''From Jesus To Christianity'', page 97 (HarperOne, 2005). ISBN 978-0-06-081610-0</ref> with ] making the same observation.<ref>Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata, ''Josephus, The Bible, and History'', page 431 (E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1988). ISBN 90-04-08931-4. Quote: "We may add that the fact that in the passage in the ''War'' parallel to the one in the ''Antiquities'' about Pilate there is no mention of Jesus, despite the fact the account of Pilate in the ''War'' is almost as full as the version in the ''Antiquities'', corroborates our suspicion that there was either no passage about Jesus in the original text of the ''Antiquities'' or that it had a different form."</ref> A small number of critics believe the references involving James and John the Baptist passages could have been later Christian interpolations but the "overwhelming majority" of scholars consider they could be authentic.<ref name=FeldHata55 /><ref name=VVoorst83 /><ref name=Bauckham /><ref name=AmyJill55 /> The discovery of a Russian version of ''The Jewish War'' during the beginning of the twentieth century, commonly called the "Slavonic Josephus" or ''Testimonium Slavianum'',<ref name="Robert E. Van Voorst page 85">Robert E. Van Voorst, ''Jesus Outside The New Testament: An Introduction To The Ancient Evidence'', page 85 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000). ISBN 0-8028-4368-9</ref> is cited as proof that the works of Josephus contained Christian interpolations.<ref name="Christians page 192">], ''The Jesus of the early Christians'', page 192 (Pemberton Books, 1971). ISBN 0301-71014-7</ref><ref name="Charles H. H 1964 pages 208-209">Charles H. H. Scobie, ''John the Baptist'' (SCM Press, 1964), reviewed in ''Journal of Biblical Literature'' by Charles E. Carlston (Volume 84, Number 2, June 1965, pages 208-209).</ref> The general scholarly view of the present day is that while the ''Testimonium Flavianum'' is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.<ref name=Schubert38 /><ref name=Kellum104 /><ref name=Evans316/><ref name=Henry185/> Both Christian and Jewish scholars who propose this theory believe the ''Testimonium'' originally existed in a different form before being interpolated later by Christians, and restore what they believe was the original version of the passage, with the references to the miraculous material omitted. Each scholar presents his own differing restored version of the ''Testimonium''. These scholars include ], <ref>John P. Meier, ''A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus'', Volume 1, page 61 (Yale University Press, 2009). ISBN 978-0300140965 </ref> ], <ref>Shlomo Pines, ''An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications'', pages 8-10, 16 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Arts and Humanities, 1971).</ref> ], <ref>Geza Vermes, "The Jesus Notice of Josephus Re-examined", in ''Journal of Jewish Studies'' (volume 38, issue 1, 1987).</ref> Paul Winter, <ref>Paul Winter, "Josephus on Jesus and James", in Emil Schürer, ''The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.- A.D. 135)'', edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973; Excursus II, p. 437)</ref> ], <ref>James H. Charlesworth, ''Jesus within Judaism: New Light From Exciting Archaeological Discoveries'' (Doubleday, 1988)</ref> ], Frederick Fyvie Bruce, ''Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament'', page 39 (Eerdmans, 1974) and Claudia Setzer. <ref>Claudia Setzer, ''Jewish Responses to Early Christians: history and Polemics, 30-150 C.E''., pages 106–107 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). ISBN 978-0800626808 </ref> | |||
In the ] (]) Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus" by order of ], a ] ] who died c. 68 AD.{{sfn|Harding|2003|p=317}}{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134-141}} The James referred to in this passage is most likely James the first bishop of Jerusalem who is also called ] in Christian literature, and to whom the ] has been attributed.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134-141}}{{sfn|Freedman|Myers|Beck|2000|p=670}}{{sfn|Neale|2003|pp=2-3}} The translations of Josephus' writing into other languages have at times included passages that are not found in the Greek texts, raising the possibility of interpolation, but this passage on James is found in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134-141}} | |||
==Manuscripts== | |||
None of the extant manuscripts of Josephus date from the early Christian period, and the first to witness any of the passages relating to Jesus was ], writing in about 324. The works of Josephus were translated into Latin during the fourth century (possibly by Rufinus), and during the same century the ''Jewish War'' was "partially rewritten as an anti-Jewish treatise, known today as ], but was considered for over a millenium and a half by many Christians as the '']'' of Josephus to his own people." <ref>Steven Bowman, "Jewish Responses to Byzantine Polemics from the Ninth through the Eleventh Centuries" , in Zev Garber (editor), ''The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation'', pages 186-187 (], 2011). ISBN 978-1-55753-579-5</ref> Variations in the Josephus manuscripts lasted for centuries - known to ], ] and the ], Suidas (flourished circa 1000 AD). During the seventeenth century it was "alleged that ] of Cambridge had large Greek fragments of Josephus not in the '']'': we do not know what became of them, and we are left to wonder whether their suppression was not deliberate." <ref>J. Spencer Kennard, Jr., "Gleanings from the Slavonic Josephus Controversy", '']'', (New Series, Volume 39, number 2, October 1948), page 164; with Kennard citing the article "Jean-Baptiste et Jésus suivant Josèphe" by ] referencing Thomas Gale in '']'', volume LXXXVII, n° 174 (avril-juin 1929); pages 113-136 . Reprinted in ''Amalthée: Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire'', Tome II (Paris: Libraire Ernest Leroux. 1930-1931), pages 314-342. </ref> | |||
The earliest surviving Greek manuscript by Josephus is the Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), dating from the eleventh century, preserved in the ] in Milan. <ref>Steve Mason (editor), ''Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary'', Volume 9, ''Life of Josephus, Translation and Commentary by Steve Mason'', page LI, (Brill, Leiden; 2001). ISBN 90-04-11793-8</ref><ref></ref> | |||
The context of the passage is the period following the death of ], and the journey to ] by ], the new ] ], who held that position from 62 AD to 64 AD.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134-141}} Because the Albinus' journey to Alexandria had to have concluded no later than the summer of 62 AD, the date of James' death can be assigned with some certainty to around that year.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134-141}}{{sfn|Mitchell|Young|2006|p=297}}{{sfn|Harding|2003|p=317}} The 2nd century chronicler ] also left an account of the death of James, and while the details he provides diverge from those of Josephus, the two accounts share similar elements.{{sfn|Painter|2004|p=126}}{{sfn|Bauckham|1999|pp=199-203}}{{sfn|Mitchell|Young|2006|p=297}} | |||
==James the brother of Jesus== | |||
Modern scholarship overwhelmingly views the entire passage, including its reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ", as authentic and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=83}}<ref name=BauckhamA >] states that although a few scholars have questioned this passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic" {{harv|Bauckham|1999|pp=199–203}}.</ref>{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54-57}}{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284-285}} Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.{{sfn|Painter|2004|p=126}} However, a few scholars still question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in '']'' differ from it.{{sfn|Habermas|1996|pp=33-37}}{{sfn|Wells|1986|p=11}} | |||
]]] | |||
In ''The Antiquities of the Jews'', Book XX, Chapter 9 of the ''Antiquities'' Josephus refers to the death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".<ref name=MHarding /><ref name=Painter134/> | |||
{{cquote2|And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.<ref>Josephus: The ''Antiquities of the Jews'' ] Text at ]</ref>}} | |||
In the ] (]) Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus" by order of ], a ] ] who died c. 68 AD.<ref name=MHarding >''Early Christian Life and Thought in Social Context'' by Mark Harding 2003 Sheffield Academic Press ISBN 0826456049 page 317</ref><ref name=Painter134/> The James referred to in this passage is thought to be the James the first bishop of Jerusalem who is also called ] in Christian literature, and to whom the ] has possibly been attributed.<ref name=Painter134>''Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition'' by ] 2005 ISBN 0567041913 pages 134-141</ref><ref name=Eerdmans670 >''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'' 2000 ISBN 9053565035 page 670</ref><ref>''A History of the Holy Eastern Church'' by John Mason Neale 2003 ISBN 1593330456 pages 2-3</ref> The majority of today's scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as having the highest level of authenticity. <ref name=FeldHata55 /><ref name=Maier285 /><ref name=VVoorst83 /><ref name=Bauckham /> Sc the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.<ref name=FeldHata55 /> The translations of Josephus' writing into other languages have at times included passages that are not found in the Greek texts, raising the possibility of interpolation, but this passage on James is found in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts.<ref name=Painter134/> | |||
===John the Baptist=== | |||
] scolds ]. Fresco by ], 1435]]{{cquote2|Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.<ref>Flavius Josephus: ''Antiquities of the Jews'' ] Text at ]</ref>}} | |||
The word "Christ" is only found twice in the entire works of Josephus, both times in the alleged references to Jesus Christ found in ''Antiquities''. | |||
In the '']'' (]) Josephus refers to the imprisonment and death of ] by order of ], the ruler of ] and ].{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}}{{sfn|Bromiley|1982|pp=694-695}} The context of this reference is the 36 AD defeat of Herod Antipas in his conflict with ] of ], which the Jews of the time attributed to misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust ].{{sfn|White|2010|p=48}}{{sfn|Dapaah|2005|p=48}}{{sfn|Hoehner|1983|pp=125-127}} | |||
Almost all modern scholars consider this passage to be authentic in its entirety, although a small number of authors have questioned it.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}}{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Whiston|Maier|1999|pp=662-63}}{{sfn|Feldman|1992|pp=990-991}} Because the death of John also appears prominently in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the ] and the dates for the ].{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}} A few scholars have questioned the passage, contending that the absence of Christian tampering or interpolation does not itself prove authenticity.{{sfn|Rothschild|2011|pp=257-258}} While this passage is the only reference to John the Baptist outside the New Testament, it is widely seen by most scholars as confirming the historicity of the baptisms that John performed.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}}{{sfn|Murphy|2003|p=2003}}{{sfn|Jonas|Lopez|2010|pp=95-96}}{{sfn|Chilton|Evans|1998|pp=187-198}} | |||
James Carleton Paget has noted the passage about the death of James in Josephus "contrasts strongly with known Christian accounts of his death found for instance in Hegesippus, the ''Ascents of James'', Clement of Alexandria's ''Hypotyposeis'', and the ''Second Apocalypse of James''." <ref>James Carleton Paget, ''Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity'', page 192 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). ISBN 978-3-16-150312-2</ref> | |||
While both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and the motive. While the gospels present this as a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and ] in defiance of Jewish law (as in ], ]) Josephus refers to it as a pre-emptive measure by Herod to quell a possible uprising.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|pp=508-509}}{{sfn|Meyers|Craven|Kraemer|2001|pp=92-93}}{{sfn|Jensen|2010|pp=42-43}}{{sfn|White|2010|p=48}} | |||
According to ] the overwhelming majority of today's scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as possibly authentic.<ref name=VVoorst83 >Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' by Robert E. Van Voorst 2000 ISBN 0802843689 page 83</ref> ] states that although a few scholars have questioned this passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic".<ref name=Bauckham >] "FOR WHAT OFFENSE WAS JAMES PUT TO DEATH?" in ''James the Just and Christian origins'' by Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans 1999 ISBN 9004115501 pages 199-203</ref> ] states that the possible authenticity of this Josephus passage has been "almost universally acknowledged".<ref name=FeldHata55 >''Josephus, Judaism and Christianity'' by ], Gōhei Hata 1997 ISBN 9004085548 pages 55-57</ref> ] states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage".<ref name=Maier285>''Josephus: The Essential Works'' by Flavius Josephus and Paul L. Maier 1995 ISBN 082543260X page 285</ref> | |||
While Josephus identifies the location of the imprisonment of John as ], southeast of the mouth of the Jordan river, the gospels mention no location for the place where John was imprisoned.{{sfn|Freedman|Myers|Beck|2000|p=842}} However, according to other historical accounts Machaerus was rebuilt by ] around 30 AD and then passed to Herod Antipas.{{sfn|Freedman|Myers|Beck|2000|p=842}}{{sfn|Gillman|2003|pp=25-31}}{{sfn|Knoblet|2005|pp=15-17}} The 36 AD date of the conflict with Aretas IV mentioned by Josephus is, however, consistent (and shortly after) the approximate date of the marriage of ] and ] estimated by other historical methods.{{sfn|Gillman|2003|pp=25-31}}{{sfn|Hoehner|1983|p=131}}{{sfn|Bromiley|1982|pp=694-695}} | |||
The context of this passage is the period after the death of ] and the journey to ] by ] the new ] ], who held that position from 62 AD to 64 AD.<ref name=Painter134 /> Because the journey of Albinus to Alexandria concluded at the latest in the summer of 62 AD, the date of the death of James can be assigned with some certainty to around that year.<ref name=MHarding /><ref name=Painter134/><ref name=MMM /> The death of James is also recorded by the 2nd century chronicler ] whose details diverge from those of Josephus, although the two accounts share similar elements.<ref name=Bauckham /><ref name=MMM >''The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine'' by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young 2006 ISBN 0521812399 page 297</ref><ref name=Chilton120 /> Modern scholarship generally considers the description of the death of James given in Josephus to be possibly the most historically reliable account.<ref name=Bauckham /><ref name=Chilton120 >]: "Who was james?" in ''The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission'' by Bruce Chilton, Jacob Neusner 2004 ISBN 0814651526 pages 126</ref> | |||
=== Testimonium Flavianum === | |||
] | |||
{{main|Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum}} | |||
{{cquote2|Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was ]. And when ], at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the ], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.<ref>Flavius Josephus: ''Antiquities of the Jews'', ] Text at ]</ref>}} | |||
However, the above passage about Ananus from the ''Antiquities'' is directly contradicted by the equivalent account by Josephus of the character of Ananus as given in the ''Jewish Wars'', that does not mention the martyrdom of James and cites the death of Ananus as the reason for the beginning of the destruction of Jerusalem. From the surviving fragments of the Jewish Wars: "I should not be wrong in saying, that with the death of Ananus began the capture of the city, and from that very day on which the Jews beheld their high priest and the guardians of their safety, murdered in the midst of Jerusalem, its bulwarks were laid low, and the Jewish state overthrown." <ref>''The Jewish War of Flavius Josephus: A New Translation'' Book IV. (Boston: John P. Jewett and Company, 1858). Available from Google Books </ref><ref>Clemens Thoma, "The High Priesthood in the Judgment of Josephus", in Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata (editors), ''Josephus, The Bible, And History'', pages 212-213 (E. J. Brill, Leiden; 1988). ISBN 90-04-08931-4</ref> | |||
The ''Testimonium Flavianum'' (meaning the testimony of Flavius <nowiki></nowiki>) is the name given to the passage found in ] of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Whiston|Maier|1999|p=662}}{{sfn|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992a|pp=38-41}} The ''Testimonium'' is likely the most discussed passage in Josephus and perhaps in all ancient literature.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54-57}} | |||
Since the 19th century, a small number of authors have questioned the authenticity of this Josephus passage, generally in the context of the denial of the existence of Jesus, the inaccuracy of the Christian gospels, or that in '']'' Josephus does not mention this incident.<ref name=Habermas33 >''The Historical Jesus'' by Gary R. Habermas 1996 ISBN 0899007325 pages 33-37</ref><ref name= Houlden660 /> Going back to ] in the 19th century these authors have included ] and ] and their views culminated in the writings of ] who in 1986 argued that the passage was interpolated by Christian authors within the context that Jesus never existed.<ref name=Habermas33/><ref>George Albert Wells, '']'', (1986) Pemberton Publishing Co., p. 11</ref><ref>], 1985 ''The Evidence for Jesus'' ISBN 0664246982 page 29</ref> However, this has been an ongoing debate and towards the end of the 20th century Wells changed his views and accepted the possible existence of Jesus, although still disputing Christian sources.<ref name= Houlden660 >''Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia, Volume 1'' by James Leslie Houlden 2003 ISBN 1576078566 page 660</ref><ref>''Familiar stranger: an introduction to Jesus of Nazareth'' by Michael James McClymond 2004 ISBN 0802826806 page 163</ref><ref>G.A. Wells, ''The Jesus Myth'', Open Court 1999, ISBN 0812693922</ref><ref name=VVoorst14 >Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' by Robert E. Van Voorst 2000 ISBN 0802843689 page 14</ref> | |||
The earliest secure reference to this passage is found in the writings of the fourth-century Christian apologist and historian ], who used Josephus' works extensively as a source for his own ]. Writing no later than 324,{{sfn|Louth|1990|}} Eusebius quotes the passage{{sfn|McGiffert|2007}} in essentially the same form as that preserved in extant manuscripts. It has therefore been suggested that part or all of the passage may have been Eusebius' own invention, in order to provide an outside Jewish authority for the life of Christ.{{sfn|Olson|1999}}{{sfn|Wallace-Hadrill|2011}} However, it is also possible that others, including the third-century ] writer ] also knew of the passage. Although Origen makes no direct reference to the ''Testimonium'', scholars such as Louis Feldman and Zvi Baras have presented arguments that Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=823}}{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340-341}} | |||
Claudia Setzer has noted that "what is striking is that Ananus accuses James of transgressing the ], but in the New Testament James appears as an advocate of loyalty to the Torah (]. 2:12, ] 21:20-24)." <ref>Claudia Setzer, "Jewish Responses to Believers in Jesus", in Amy-Jill Levine, Marc Z. Brettler (editors), ''The Jewish Annotated New Testament'', page 577 (New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 2011). ISBN 978-0195297706</ref> | |||
Of the three passages found in Josephus' Antiquities, this passage, if authentic, would offer the most direct support for the crucifixion of Jesus. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.{{sfn|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992a|pp=38-41}}{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104-108}}{{sfn|Evans|2001|p=316}}{{sfn|Wansbrough|2004|p=185}} ] states that there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the ''Testimonium'' and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}} Among other things, the authenticity of this passage would help make sense of the later reference in Josephus ] ] where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus". A number of scholars argue that the reference to Jesus in this later passage as "the aforementioned Christ" relates to the earlier reference in the ''Testimonium''.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54-57}}{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284-285}}{{sfn|Vermes|2011|pp=33-44}} | |||
Scholars who have doubted the authenticity of the passage about James in Josephus include Tessa Rajak (1983) and Ken Olson (1999). <ref>James Carleton Paget, ''Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity'', page 192, footnote 28 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). ISBN 978-3-16-150312-2</ref> | |||
==Ancient and medieval sources== | |||
===Extant manuscripts=== | |||
] | |||
Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. AD 71) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor ]. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1989|p=431}} (Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor.{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Leeming|Osinkina|Leeming|2003|p=26}}) | |||
Carl Clemen commented on the unreliabilty of the passage about James: "especially because Origen, who three times mentions Josephus' account of the death of James, read it differently". <ref>Carl Clemen, "Josephus and Christianity", page 366. ''The Biblical World'', Volume 25, Number 5 (May, 1905).</ref> ] has also commented: "That there has been some tampering with that passage is suggested by the fact that Origen, who refers to Josephus's account of the death of James, claims to have read something rather different on that subject in his text of Josephus from what now stands there." <ref>G. A. Wells, ''The Jesus Legend'', page 54 (Carus Publishing Company, 1997). ISBN 0-8126-9334-5</ref> | |||
There are about 120 extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus, of which 33 predate the 14th century, with two thirds from the ] period.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=369}} The earliest surviving Greek manuscript that contains the ''Testimonium'' is the 11th century Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), preserved in the ] in Milan, which includes almost all of the second half of the ''Antiquities''. {{sfn|Mason|2001|p=LI}} There are about 170 extant Latin translations of Josephus, some of which go back to the sixth century, and according to ] have proven very useful in reconstructing the Josephus texts through comparisons with the Greek manuscripts, reconfirming proper names and filling in gaps.{{sfn|Feldman|1984}} | |||
==John the Baptist== | |||
There is considerable evidence, however, that attests to the existence of the references to Jesus in Josephus well before then, including a number of ''ad hoc'' copies of Josephus' work preserved in quotation from the works of Christian writers. The earliest known such reference to Josephus' work is found in the writings of the third century patristic author ], although he does not provide any direct reference to the passages involving Jesus. The first witness to any of the passages relating to Jesus was ], writing in the first decades of the fourth century.{{sfn|Louth|1990|}} Both Origen and Eusebius had access to the Greek versions of Josephus' texts. The works of Josephus were translated into Latin during the fourth century (possibly by ]), and, in the same century, the ''Jewish War'' was "partially rewritten as an anti-Jewish treatise, known today as ], but <nowiki></nowiki> was considered for over a millenium and a half by many Christians as the '']'' of Josephus to his own people." {{sfn|Bowman|2011|pp=186-187}} | |||
] scolds ]. Fresco by ], 1435]]{{cquote2|Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.<ref>Josephus: ''Antiquities of the Jews'' ] Text at ]</ref>}} | |||
In the '']'' (]) Josephus refers to the imprisonment (and death) of ] by order of ], the ruler of ] and ].<ref name=AmyJill55 /><ref name=Bromiley694 >''International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J'' by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 1982 ISBN 0802837824 pages 694-695</ref> The context of this reference is the 36 AD defeat of Herod Antipas in his conflict with ] of ], which the Jews of the time attributed to misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust ].<ref name=Cyndy48 /><ref>''The relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth'' by Daniel S. Dapaah 2005 ISBN 0761831096 page 48</ref><ref name=Hoehner125 >''Herod Antipas'' by Harold W. Hoehner'' 1983 ISBN 0310422515 pages 125-127</ref> Almost all modern scholars strongly consider this Josephus passage about John to be possibly authentic in its entirety.<ref name=AmyJill55 /><ref name="Louis H. Feldman pp. 990-1">Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.</ref> Given that the death of John also appears in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the ] and the dates for the ].<ref name=AmyJill55 /> | |||
One of the reasons the works of Josephus were copied and maintained by Christians was that his writings provided a good deal of information about a number of figures mentioned in the New Testamant, and the background to events such as the death of James during a gap in Roman governing authority.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=83}} Because manuscript transmission was done by hand-copying, typically by monastic scribes, almost all ancient texts have been subject to both accidental and deliberate alterations, emendations (called ]) or elisions. It is both the lack of any original corroborating manuscript source outside the Christian tradition as well as the practice of Christian interpolation that has led to the scholarly debate regarding the authenticity of Josephus' references to Jesus in his work. Although there is no doubt that most (but not all<ref>For example, an ancient Table of Contents of the eighteenth book of the ''Antiquities'' omits any reference to the passage about Jesus, as does the Josephus codex of the patriarch ]. Nor is it clear if the ''Testimonium'' existed in the Josephus exemplar used by ]. See {{harvnb|Schreckenberg|Schubert|1992b|pp=57–58}}.</ref>) of the later copies of the ''Antiquities'' contained references to Jesus and John the Baptist, it cannot be definitively shown that these were original to Josephus writings, and were not instead added later by Christian interpolators. Much of the scholarly work concerning the references to Jesus in Josephus has thus concentrated on close textual analysis of the Josephan corpus to determine the degree to which the language, as preserved in both early Christian quotations and the later transmissions, should be considered authentic. | |||
If authentic, the passage represents the only corroboration of his life outside of early Christian literature. Clare K. Rothschild has noted that "Today we have only three Greek manuscripts of this portion of the ''Antiquities'', the earliest of which dates to the eleventh century" and "absence of Christian tampering does not constitute positive proof of authenticity", also observing "arguments both for and against authenticity of the passage have advantages and flaws of equal weight making a clear decision either way impossible." <ref>Clare K. Rothschild, "Echo of a Whisper": The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus' Witness to John the Baptist, in David Hellholm, Tor Vegge, A~yvind Norderval, Christer Hellholm (editors), ''Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity'', pages 257 and 258 (Walter de Gruyter, 2011). ISBN 978-3-11-024751-0</ref> | |||
====Slavonic Josephus==== | |||
{{main|Slavonic Josephus}} | |||
The three references found in ] and | |||
] of the ''Antiquities'' do not appear in any other versions of Josephus' '']'' except for a ] version of the ''Testimonium Flavomium'' (at times called ''Testimonium Slavonium'') which surfaced in the west at the beginning of the 20th century, after its discovery in Russia at the end of the 19th century.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=85}}{{sfn|Creed|1932}} | |||
Although originally hailed as authentic (notably by ]), it is now almost universally acknowledged by scholars to have been the product of an 11th century creation as part of a larger ideological struggle against the ].{{sfn|Bowman|1987|pp=373-374}} As a result, it has little place in the ongoing debate over the authenticity and nature of the references to Jesus in the ''Antiquities.''{{sfn|Bowman|1987|pp=373-374}} ] states that although some scholars had in the past supported the ''Slavonic Josephus'', "to my knowledge no one today believes that they contain anything of value for Jesus research".{{sfn|Chilton|Evans|1998|p=451}} | |||
====Arabic and Syriac Josephus==== | |||
In 1971, a 10th century Arabic version of the ''Testimonium'' due to ] was brought to light by ] who also discovered a 12th century ] version of Josephus by ].{{sfn|Pines|1971|p=19}}{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336-337}}{{sfn|Feldman|2006|pp=329-330}} These additional manuscript sources of the Testimonium have furnished additional ways to evaluate Josephus' mention of Jesus in the ''Antiquities'', principally through a close textual comparison between the Arabic, Syriac and Greek versions to the ''Testimonium''.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104-108}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}} | |||
There are subtle yet key differences between the Greek manuscripts and these texts. For instance, the Arabic version does not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. The key phrase "at the suggestion of the principal men among us" reads instead "Pilate condemned him to be crucified".<ref>''The historical Jesus: ancient evidence for the life of Christ'' by Gary R. Habermas 1996 ISBN page 194</ref>{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104-108}} And instead of "he was Christ," the Syriac version has the phrase "he was believed to be Christ".{{sfn|Vermes|2011|33-44}} Drawing on these textual variations, scholars have suggested that these versions of the ''Testimonium'' more closely reflect what a non-Christian Jew may have written. {{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336-337}} | |||
===Early References=== | |||
]]] | |||
In the 3rd century, ] was the first ancient writer to have a comprehensive reference to Josephus, although some other authors had made smaller, general references to Josephus before then, e.g. ] and ] in the second century, followed by ].{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987}}{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Whiston|Maier|1999|p=15}} Origen explicitly mentions the name of Josephus 11 times, both in Greek and Latin. However, despite the fact that most of Origen's works only survive in Latin translations, 10 out of the 11 references are in the original Greek.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987}} | |||
The context for Origen's references is his defense of Christianity.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987}} In '']'' (]) as Origen defends the Christian practice of ], he recounts Josephus' reference to the baptisms performed by ] for the sake of purification.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987}} In ] Origen mentions Josephus' reference to the death of ]. And again in his ''Commentary on Matthew'' (]) Origen refers to Josephus' ''Antiquities of the Jews'' by name and that Josephus had stated that the death of James had brought a wrath upon those who had killed him.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987}}{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=205}} | |||
The 4th century writings of ] refer to Josephus' account of James, John and Jesus. In his '']'' (]) Eusebius discusses the Josephus reference to how ] killed ], and mentions the marriage to ] in items 1 to 6. In the same Book I chapter, in items 7 and 8 Eusebius also discusses the Josephus reference to the crucifixion of Jesus by ], a reference that is present in all surviving Eusebius manuscripts.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336-337}}{{sfn|Bartlett|1985|pp=92-94}} | |||
In ] of his ''Church History'', Eusebius describes the death of James according to Josephus. In that chapter, Eusebius first describes the background including ], and mentions ] and ]. In item 20 of that chapter Eusebius then mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James and the sufferings that befell those who killed him. However, Eusebius does not acknowledge Origen as one of his sources for the reference to James in Josephus.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=155-167}} | |||
==Detailed Analysis== | |||
===Variations from Christian sources=== | |||
There are some variations between the statements by Josephus regarding James the brother of Jesus and John the Baptist and the ] and other Christian accounts. Scholars generally view these variations as indications that the Josephus passages are not interpolations, for a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to the Christian traditions.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}}{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|p=130}} | |||
Josephus' account places the date of the death of James as AD 62.<ref>''International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A-D'' by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 1979 ISBN 0-8028-3781-6 page 692</ref> This date is supported by ]'s 'seventh year of the Emperor Nero', although Jerome may simply be drawing this from Josephus.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=221–222}} However, James' successor as leader of the Jerusalem church, ], is not, in tradition, appointed till after the ] in AD 70, and Eusebius' notice of Simeon implies a date for the death of James immediately before the siege, i.e. about AD 69.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=143–145}} The method of death of James is not mentioned in the New Testament.<ref>''The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament'' by Warren W. Wiersbe 2003 ISBN 1564760316 page 334</ref> However, the account of Josephus differs from that of later works by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea that it simply has James stoned while the others have other variations such as having James thrown from the top of the Temple, stoned, and finally beaten to death by laundrymen{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|p=189}} as well as his death occurring during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 69. | |||
] from the ], 1493]] | |||
] states that the relationship of the death of James to the siege is an important theologoumenon in the early church.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=143–145}} On the basis of the Gospel accounts it was concluded that the fate of the city was determined by the death there of Jesus.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=143–145}} To account for the 35 year difference, Painter states that the city was preserved temporarily by the presence within it of a 'just man' (see also ]); who was identified with James, as confirmed by Origen. Hence Painter states that the killing of James restarted the clock that led to the destruction of the city and that the traditional dating of 69 AD simply arose from an over-literal application of the theologoumenon, and is not to be regarded as founded on a historical source.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=143–145}} The difference between Josephus and the Christian accounts of the death of James is seen as an indication that the Josephus passage is not a Christian interpolation by scholars such as Eddy, Boyd, and Kostenberger.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|p=189}}{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104-05}} ] states that compared to the Christian accounts: "the sober picture of Josephus appears all the more believable".<ref>Vermes, Geza (2011). ''Jesus in the Jewish World''. ISBN 0-334-04379-4 page 40</ref> ], on the other hand, has stated that in view or ]'s statements these variations from the Christian accounts may be signs of interpolation in the James passage.<ref name=Wells545 /> | |||
The marriage of ] and ] is mentioned both in Josephus and in the gospels, and scholars consider Josephus as a key connection in establishing the approximate chronology of specific episodes related to John the Baptist.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}} However, although both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and motives, e.g. whether this act was a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias (as indicated in ], ]), or a pre-emptive measure by Herod which possibly took place before the marriage to quell a possible uprising based on the remarks of John, as Josephus suggests in ].{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|pp=508-509}}<ref name=Cyndy48 >''The Emergence of Christianity: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective'' by Cynthia White 2010 ISBN 0-8006-9747-2 page 48</ref>{{sfn|Gillman|2003|pp=25-31}} | |||
] has stated that there is "no necessary contradiction between Josephus and the gospels as to the reason why John was put to death" in that the Christians chose to emphasize the moral charges while Josephus emphasized the political fears that John stirred in Herod.<ref>''Josephus and Modern Scholarship'' by Louis H. Feldman 1984, ISBN 3-11-008138-5 page 675</ref> | |||
Josephus stated (]) that the AD 36 defeat of Herod Antipas in the conflicts with ] of ] was widely considered by the Jews of the time as misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust execution of John the Baptist.<ref name=Cyndy48 /><ref>''The relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth'' by Daniel S. Dapaah 2005 ISBN 0-7618-3109-6 page 48</ref><ref name=Hoehner125 >''Herod Antipas'' by Harold W. Hoehner'' 1983 ISBN 0-310-42251-5 pages 125-127</ref> The approximate dates presented by Josephus are in concordance with other historical records, and most scholars view the variation between the motive presented by Josephus and the New Testament accounts is seen as an indication that the Josephus passage is not a Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}} | |||
===Arguments challenging authenticity=== | |||
====The James passage==== | |||
]'']] | |||
A comparative argument made against the authenticity of the James passage by scholars such as Tessa Rajak is that the passage has a negative tone regarding the High Priest ], presenting him as impulsive while in the Jewish Wars Josephus presents a positive view of Ananus and portrays him as prudent.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128-130}} {{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}} | |||
A textual argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that the use of the term "Christos" there seems unusual for Josephus.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128-130}} An argument based on the flow of the text in the document is that given that the mention of Jesus appears in the ''Antiquities'' before that of the John the Baptist a Christian interpolator may have inserted it to place Jesus in the text before John.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128-130}} A further argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that it would have read well even without a reference to Jesus.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128-130}} | |||
Although a small number of authors have questioned this reference, <ref>For example, Léon Herrmann, ''Chrestos, Témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme: du premier siècle,'' (Bruxelles, Latomus, 1970).</ref> almost all modern scholars consider this Josephus passage about John to be possibly authentic in its entirety.<ref name=AmyJill55 >Craig Evans, 2006 "Josephus on John the Baptist" in ''The Historical Jesus in Context'' edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. Princeton Univ Press ISBN 9780691009926 pages 55-58</ref><ref name="Louis H. Feldman pp. 990-1"/><ref>''The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus'', William Whiston, Paul L. Maier ISBN 0825429242 pages 662-663</ref> Given that the death of John also appears in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the ] and the dates for the ].<ref name=AmyJill55 /> | |||
Some of the arguments for and against the authenticity of the James passage revolve around the similarities and differences between the accounts of Josephus, Origen, Eusebius and the New testament. Although Josephus' account of the method of death of James differs from that of the New Testament, this is seen as an indication that the Josephus account is not a Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|p=130}} | |||
While both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and the motive. While the gospels present this as a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and ] in defiance of Jewish law (as in ], ]) Josephus refers to it as a pre-emptive measure by Herod to quell a possible uprising.<ref name=Cyndy48 >''The Emergence of Christianity: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective'' by Cynthia White 2010 ISBN 0800697472 page 48</ref><ref name=Leslie508 >''Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia, Volume 1'' by James Leslie Houlden 2003 ISBN 1576078566 pages 508-509</ref><ref>''Women in scripture'' by by Carol Meyers, Toni Craven and Ross Shepard Kraemer 2001 ISBN 0802849628 pages 92-93</ref><ref>''Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources'' by Morten H. Jensen 2010 ISBN 978-3-16-150362-7 pages 42-43</ref> However, this difference between the motive presented in the gospels and the one stated by Josephus is one of several criteria scholars list in favor of the possible authenticity of the Josephus passage, given that Christian interpolators would have most probably made it consistent with the gospels.<ref name=Feldman331 >''Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered'' by Louis H. Feldman 2006 ISBN 9004149066 pages 330-331</ref> Feldman also states that Christian interpolators would have been very unlikely to have devoted almost twice as much space to John (163 words) as to Jesus (89 words).<ref name=Feldman331 /> | |||
John Painter states that Origen expresses surprise that given that a Josephus who disbelieves in Jesus as Christ (''Commentary on Matthew'' ]) should write respectfully of James, his brother.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=132-137}} However, according to Painter unlike the ''Testimonium'' this issue has not generated a great deal controversy, although viewed as a potential reason for doubting authenticity.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=132-137}} | |||
While Josephus identifies the location of the imprisonment of John as ], southeast of the mouth of the Jordan river, the gospels mention no location for the place where John was imprisoned.<ref name=Machaerus >''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'' 2000 ISBN 9053565035 page 842</ref> However, according to other historical accounts Machaerus was rebuilt by ] around 30 AD and then passed to Herod Antipas.<ref name=Machaerus /><ref name=fox25 /><ref>''Herod the Great'' by Jerry Knoblet 2005 ISBN 0761830871 pages 15-17</ref> The 36 AD date of the conflict with Aretas IV mentioned by Josephus is, however, consistent (and shortly after) the approximate date of the marriage of ] and ] estimated by other historical methods.<ref name=Bromiley694 /><ref name=fox25 >''Herodias: at home in that fox's den'' by Florence Morgan Gillman 2003 ISBN 0814651089 pages 25-31</ref><ref>''Herod Antipas'' by Harold W. Hoehner'' 1983 ISBN 0310422515 page 131]</ref> | |||
An issue that is subject to more debate is that in ''Commentary on Matthew'' (]), Origen cites Josephus as stating the death of James had brought a wrath upon those who had killed him, and that his death was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987}}{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=205}}<ref>Quoting Mizugaki, page 335: "Origen notes with favour that Josephus seeks the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in the assassination of James the Just but gravely adds that Josephus ought to have stated that the calamity happened because the Jews killed Christ."</ref> A the end of ] Origen disagrees with Josephus' placement of blame for the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James, and states that it was due to the death of Jesus, not James.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=132-137}} | |||
The differences between the two accounts of John the Baptist found in Josephus and the New Testament have been noted by Claudia Setzer. In Mark it is the daughter of Herodias who instigates the execution of John the Baptist; while John the Baptist in the New Testament preaches a "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4), Josephus describes he rejected that interpretation ("For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins"); and Josephus wrote he was "executed out of fear that he may be a revolutionary, a motif that is absent from the New Testament." <ref>Claudia Setzer, "Jewish Responses to Believers in Jesus", in Amy-Jill Levine, Marc Z. Brettler (editors), ''The Jewish Annotated New Testament'', page 576 (New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 2011). ISBN 978-0195297706 </ref> | |||
In ] of his ''Church History'', Eusebius mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James and the sufferings that befell those who killed him. In this reference Eusebius writes: “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.” However, this statement does not appear in the extant manuscripts of Josephus.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=132-137}} Painter states that whether the Book II, Chapter 23.20 statement by Eusebius is an interpolation remains an open question.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=132-137}} | |||
==Testimonium Flavianum== | |||
Eusebius does not acknowledge Origen as one of his sources for the reference to James in Josephus.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=155-167}} However, John painter states that placing the blame for the siege of Jerusalem on the death of James is perhaps an early Christian invention that predates both Origen and Eusebius and that it likely existed in the traditions to which they were both exposed.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=132-137}} Painter states that it is likely that Eusebius may have obtained his explanation of the siege of Jerusalem from Origen.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=155-167}} | |||
Book 18 of Josephus' ''Antiquities of the Jews'' contains the following disputed passage about Jesus Christ: | |||
] has stated that the fact that Origen seems to have read something different about the death of James in Josephus than what there is now, suggests some tampering with the James passage seen by Origen.<ref name=Wells545>''The Jesus Legend'' by G. A. Wells 1996 ISBN 0-8126-9334-5 pages 54-55</ref> Wells suggests that the interpolation seen by Origen may not have survived in the extant Josephus manuscripts, but that it opens the possibility that there may have been other interpolations in Josephus' writings.<ref name=Wells545 /> Wells further states that differences between the Josephus account and those of ] and ] may point to interpolations in the James passage.<ref name=Wells545 /> | |||
] | |||
{{cquote2|Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was ]. And when ], at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the ], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.<ref>Josephus: ''Antiquities of the Jews'', ] Text at ]</ref>}} | |||
Paul L. Maier, former ] of ] at ] stated scholars fall into three main camps over its authenticity: 1) It is entirely authentic, 2) It is entirely a Christian forgery and 3) It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus's authentic material about Jesus.<ref>Paul L. Maier, ''The New Complete Works of Josephus'', page 662 (Kregel Publications, 1999). ISBN 0-8254-2924-2</ref><ref>Paul L. Maier, ''Eusebius: The Church History'', page 336 (Kregel Publications, 2007). ISBN 978-0-8254-3307-8</ref> | |||
An argument going back to at least 1893 against the authenticity of the reference in the James passage is that the "Jesus son of Damneus" at the end of the passage was the Jesus actually being refereed to by Josephus and the "who was called Christ" as a later interpolation usually along the lines of a added (and mistaken about who this Jesus was) ] that was later incorporated into the text proper.<ref>Mitchell, Richard M. (1893) ''The Safe Side: A Theistic Refutation of the Divinity of Christ'' pg 188-189</ref> Drews in ''The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus'' pointed out even if the passage was entirely genuine the term "brother" could have been used in a spiritual sense and that all the passage really shows is a James belonging to a sect that venerated a Messiah called Jesus.<ref>Arthur Drews, ''The Witness To The Historicity of Jesus'', page 9 (London: Watts & Co., 1912). </ref> Recent amateur research has built on the acknowledgement that "christ" was a term meaning "annotated one" as well a title referring to Jesus proper and that high priests per Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1 were "annotated"<ref name=Mason228 >Mason, Steve (2002) ''Josephus and the New Testament'' Baker Academic ISBN 978-0-8010-4700-8 page 228</ref>, suggesting that since "Jesus son of Damneus" would have been literally become the "annotated one" (ie 'christ' with a little 'c') upon becoming high priest that there is nothing to suggest thar he and the "Jesus who was called Christ" are two separate people other then the wishful thinking of apologists especially in the light of the fact the majority of sources and early Christianity tradition put James dying c70 CE by being thrown from a battlement, stoned, and finally clubbed to death by passing laundrymen.<ref>Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) ''The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition''. Baker Academic, pg 189</ref> | |||
In ] of the ''Antiquities'' Josephus refers to the execution of Jesus by ].<ref name=FeldHata55 /><ref name=Schubert38 /> This passage is generally called the '']''. It is the most discussed passage in all of Josephus' writings and perhaps in all ancient literature.<ref name=FeldHata55 /> Scholars have differing views on the authenticity of the ''Testimonium''. The general scholarly view is that while the ''Testimonium Flavianum'' is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.<ref name=Schubert38 /><ref name=Kellum104 /><ref name=Evans316/><ref name=Henry185/> However, ] has cautiously stated that "nothing is certain" (see below). <ref>James Leslie Houlden, ''Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Entries A - J'', Volume 1, page 510 (ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2003). ISBN 1-57607-856-6</ref> A number of scholars suggest a relationship between the ''Testimonium'' and the reference to James the brother of Jesus, viewing the ''Testimonium'' as the initial reference to Jesus, which is then referred to again in the passage on James in Book 20.<ref name=FeldHata55 /><ref name=Maier285 /><ref name=Geza40/> | |||
====John the Baptist==== | |||
Scholars such as Claudia Setzer have noted the differences between the rationale for the death of John the Baptist presented by Josephus, and the theological variations (e.g. whether immersion in water can result in the forgiveness of sins, etc.) and the New Testament accounts.<ref>Claudia Setzer, "Jewish Responses to Believers in Jesus", in ''The Jewish Annotated New Testament'' by Amy-Jill Levine 2011 ISBN 978-0-19-529770-6 page 576</ref> However, these differences are usually seen as indications of the lack of tampering, given that an interpolator would have made the accounts similar.<ref>''Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered'' by Louis H. Feldman 2006 ISBN 90-04-14906-6 pages 330-331</ref> | |||
The ''Testimonium Flavianumin'' appears in the Greek version of the '']'' (]) and refers to Jesus.<ref name=Schubert38 >''Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature'' (Vol 2) by H. Schreckenberg and K. Schubert 1992 ISBN 9023226534 pages 38-41</ref><ref>William Whiston, ''The New Complete Works of Josephus'', Kregel Academic, 1999. p 662</ref> According to Josephus scholar ], the ''Testimonium'' is the most discussed passage in Josephus and perhaps in all ancient literature.<ref name=FeldHata55 >''Josephus, Judaism and Christianity'' by Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata 1997 ISBN 9004085548 pages 55-57</ref> | |||
Claire Rothschild has stated that the absence of Christian interpolations in the Josephus passage on John the Baptist can not by itself be used as an argument for its authenticity, but is merely an indication of the lack of tampering.<ref>Rothschild, Claire (2011). ""Echo of a Whisper": The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus' Witness to John the Baptist". In Hellholm, David; Vegge, Tor; Norderval, Øyvind et al. Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-024751-0 page 271</ref> | |||
The first person to cite this passage of the ''Antiquities'' was Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in about 324. In his ''Demonstratio Evangelica,'' he quotes the passage | |||
====Testimonium Flavianum==== | |||
<ref name=eus>{{cite web | |||
The ''Testimonium'' has been the subject of a great deal of research and debate among scholars, being one of the most discussed passages among all antiquities.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=55}} Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the ''Testimonium''.<ref name=Feld88Hata430 >''Josephus, the Bible, and History'' by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata 1988 ISBN 0-8143-1982-3 page 430</ref> While early scholars considered the ''Testimonium'' to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text.<ref name="Whealey2003">{{cite book|author=Alice Whealey|title=Josephus on Jesus: the testimonium Flavianum controversy from late antiquity to modern times|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=eZUlAQAAIAAJ|accessdate=19 February 2012|year=2003|publisher=Peter Lang|isbn=978-0-8204-5241-8}}</ref><ref>Meier, 1990 (especially note 15)</ref> | |||
| last = McGiffert | |||
| first = Arthur Cushman | |||
| title = Paragraph 7 of "Chapter XI.—Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ" from Book I of Eusebius' "The Church History." | |||
| url= http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.xi.html | |||
| accessdate = 2007-08-12 }} (From the ''Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,'' Series II, Vol. 1, edited by ].)</ref> in essentially the same form (he has πολλους των Ιουδαιων instead of πολλους Ιουδαιους, and inserts απο before του Ελληνικου). | |||
As is common with ancient texts, ''The Antiquities of the Jews'' survives only in medieval copies. The manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century, are all Greek minuscules, and all have been copied by Christian monks.<ref name="autogenerated1">Feldman (1989), p. 431</ref> Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor. The text of ''Antiquities'' appears to have been transmitted in two halves i.e. (books 1–10 and books 11–20). Other ''ad hoc'' copies of the ''Testimonium'' also survive, as a quotation in the works of Christian writers. | |||
The arguments surrounding the authenticity of the ''Testimonium'' fall into two categories: internal arguments that rely on textual analysis and compare the passage with the rest of Josephus' work; and external arguments, that consider the wider cultural and historical context.<ref name="Paget2001">{{cite journal|last1=Paget|first1=J. C.|title=Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity|journal=The Journal of Theological Studies|volume=52|issue=2|year=2001|pages=539–624|issn=0022-5185|doi=10.1093/jts/52.2.539}}</ref> Some of the external arguments are "arguments from silence" that question the authenticity of the entire passage not for what it says, but due to lack of references to it among other ancient sources.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=91-92}} | |||
An ancient Table of Contents of the eighteenth book of the ''Antiquities'' omits any reference to the passage about Jesus, as does the Josephus codex of the patriarch ].<ref>Heinz Schreckenberg, Kurt Schubert, ''Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity'', page 58 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992). ISBN 90-232-2653-4</ref> Nor did the ''Testimonium'' exist in the Josephus codex used by the ] ].<ref>Heinz Schreckenberg, Kurt Schubert, page 57.</ref> | |||
The external analyses of the ''Testimonium'' have even used computer-based methods, e.g. the matching of the text of the ''Testimonium'' with the ] performed by Gary Goldberg in 1995.<ref name=GGoldberg >Goldberg, G. J. 1995 "The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus" ''The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha'' 13, pp. 59-77 </ref> Goldberg found some partial matches between the ''Testimonium'' and Luke 24:19-21, 26-27, but the results were not conclusive.<ref name=GGoldberg /> Goldberg's analyses suggested three possibilities, one that the matches were random, or that the ''Testimonium'' was a Christian interpolation based on Luke, and finally that both the ''Testimonium'' and Luke were based on the same sources.<ref name=GGoldberg /> | |||
Michael J. Cook described the content of the ''Testimonium'' as "so adulatory and consistent with what we would expect of a ''Christian'' assessment that most scholars dismiss it as a reworking, even an outright forgery, by a later Christian hand (it was the church, not the rabbis, who preserved Josephus' writings)." <ref>Michael J. Cook, "Jewish Perspectives on Jesus", in Delbert Burkett (editor), ''The Blackwell Companion to Jesus'', page 216 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). ISBN 978-1-4051-9362-7</ref> | |||
=====Internal Arguments===== | |||
] | |||
Scholars have differing views on the authenticity of the ''Testimonium''.<ref>Edwin M. Yamauchi, ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?'' p. 212.</ref> The general scholarly view is that while the ''Testimonium Flavianum'' is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally possibly consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.<ref name=Schubert38 /><ref name=Kellum104 >''The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament'' by Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum and Charles L Quarles 2009 ISBN 0805443657 pages 104-108</ref><ref name=Evans316>''Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies'' by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0391041185 page 316</ref><ref name=Henry185>''Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition'' by Henry Wansbrough 2004 ISBN 0567040909 page 185</ref> Although New Testament scholar Robert Van Voorst favours this explanation, he remarks that nothing is certain, and mentions that "other scholars deny the authenticity of the entire passage. Their argument is based on the context of the passage in the ''Antiquities'', the arguably Christian wording of the passage, and Josephus's belief that the Roman general Vespasian was the messiah (''Jewish War'' 6.6.4: 310-13; cf. 3.8.9: 392-408)."<ref>James Leslie Houlden, ''Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Entries A - J'', Volume 1, page 510 (ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2003). ISBN 1-57607-856-6</ref> In another work about the ''Testimonium'', Van Voorst adds: "Because the few manuscripts of Josephus come from the eleventh century, long after Christian interpolations would have been made, textual criticism cannot help to solve this issue." Despite this, Van Voorst concludes that Josephus was a "unique and carefully neutral, highly accurate and perhaps independent witness to Jesus." <ref>Robert E. Van Voorst, ''Jesus Outside The New Testament: An Introduction To The Ancient Evidence'', pages 88; 104 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000). ISBN 0-8026-4368-9</ref> | |||
One of the key internal arguments against the total authenticity of the ''Testimonium'' is that the clear inclusion of Christian phraseology strongly indicates the presence of some interpolations.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=91}} For instance, the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man" suggests that Jesus was more than human and is likely a Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=91}} Some scholars have attempted to reconstruct the original ''Testimonium'', but others contend that attempts to discriminate the passage into Josephan and non-Josephan elements are inherently circular.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}} | |||
A number of scholars suggest a relationship between the ''Testimonium'' and the reference to Jesus in ] ] where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus". ] views the reference to Jesus in the death of James passage as "the aforementioned Christ", thus relating that passage to the ''Testimonium'', which he views as the first reference to Jesus in the works on Josephus.<ref name=FeldHata55 /> ] concurs with the analysis of Feldman and states that Josephus' first reference was the ''Testimonium''.<ref name=Maier285 /> ] also considers the reference to James as the second reference and states that the first reference is likely to be the ''Testimonium''.<ref name=Geza40>''Jesus in the Jewish World'' by ] 2011 ISBN 0334043794 pages 33-44</ref> Vermes has reconstructed what he considers to be the authentic nucleus of the ''Testimonium'' which contains a reference to the cross and one to the early Christians.<ref name=Geza40/> | |||
] states that the fact that the 10th century Arabic version of the ''Testimonium'' (discovered in the 1970s) lacks distinct Christian terminology while sharing the essential elements of the passage indicates that the Greek ''Testimonium'' has been subject to interpolation.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104-108}} | |||
] states that although some portions of the ''Testimonium'' are most likely interpolations, there is strong evidence that some elements of it are authentic.<ref name=Kellum105>The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 9780805443653 pages 105-107</ref> Thomas Yoder Neufeld states that most scholars today consider the core of the ''Testimonium'' reference to have been written by Josphus, then subjected to later extensions.<ref name=Yoder>''Recovering Jesus'' by Thomas Yoder Neufeld 2007 ISBN 1587432021 page 40</ref> ] supports the view that most scholars consider the core of the passage to be authentic.<ref name=Bock>''Studying the historical Jesus: a guide to sources and methods'' by Darrell L. Bock 2002 ISBN 080102451X page 55</ref> ] states that the kernel of the ''Testimoniun'' was likely written by Josephus but was extended later.<ref name=Gerd >''The quest for the plausible Jesus: the question of criteria'' by Gerd Theissen, Dagmar Winter 2002 ISBN 0664225373 page 14</ref> Claudia Setzer states that she agrees with ]'s view that the core of the ''Testimonium'' was written by Josephus, then extended.<ref name=Sezer1 >''Jewish responses to early Christians'' by Claudia Setzer 1994 ISBN 080062680X page 106</ref><ref name=Setzer2>Claudia Setzer "Jewish Responses to believers in Jesus" in ''The Jewish Annotated New Testament'' by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Z. Brettler 2011 ISBN 0195297709 page 579</ref> Paul D. Wegner also states that a case can be made that the kernel of the ''Testimonium'' was written by Josephus.<ref name=Wegner>''Journey from Texts to Translations'' by Paul D. Wegner 2004 ISBN 0801027993 page 133</ref> | |||
Another example of the textual arguments against the ''Testimonium'' is that it uses the Greek term ''poietes'' to mean "doer" (as part of the phrase "doer of wonderful works") but elsewhere in his works, Josephus only uses the term ''poietes'' to mean "poet," whereas this use of "poietes" seems consistent with the Greek of Eusebius.<ref name=Mason231 >''Josephus and the New Testament'' by Steve Mason 2003 ISBN 1-56563-795-X page 231</ref> | |||
Scholars who do not regard the passage as authentic include ], ] and ].<ref>On the ''Testimonium Flavianum'' S. G. F. Brandon commented: "if it had been written by Josephus, must surely mean that he himself was a Christian or at least admitted to the truth of the Christian case. There is reason for thinking however, that this account was either a Christian interpolation or an emendation of something unpalatable that Josephus had actually written about Jesus. The fascination of the problem lies in the fact, which we have noted, that Josephus was eminently well placed for knowing the origins of Christianity; and the value of his testimony as an independent witness would be immense, if it could be recovered." Cited from S.G.F. Brandon (editor), Religion In ''Ancient History: Studies In Ideas, Men and Events'', page 309 (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1969). ISBN 0-04-2000020-5</ref> Steven Bowman stated that "Eusebius, the polymath ] biographer of Constantine is considered the likely candidate for this pious fraud." <ref>Steven Bowman, "Jewish Responses to Byzantine Polemics from the Ninth through the Eleventh Centuries" , in Zev Garber (editor), ''The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation'', pages 185-186 (Purdue University Press, 2011). ISBN 978-1-55753-579-5</ref> | |||
The concordance of the language used in the ''Testimonium'', its flow within the text and its length have formed components of the internal arguments against its authenticity, e.g. that the brief and compact character of the ''Testimonium'' stands in marked contrast to Josephus' more extensive accounts presented elsewhere in his works.<ref name=Wells49/> For example, Josephus' description of the death of ] includes consideration of his virtues, the theology associated with his baptismal practices, his oratorical skills, his influence, the circumstances of his death, and the belief that the destruction of Herod's army was a divine punishment for Herod's slaughter of John.<ref name=MeierJSTOR > {{cite journal | title = John the Baptist in Josephus: philology and exegesis | journal = Journal of Biblical Literature | first = John P. | last = Meier | volume = 111 | issue = 2 | pages = 225–237| id = | jstor = 3267541 | year = 1992 | doi = 10.2307/3267541}}</ref> ] has argued against the authenticity of the ''Testimonium'', stating that the passage is noticeably shorter and more cursory than such notices generally used by Josephus in the ''Antiquities'', and that had it been authentic, it would have included more details and a longer introduction.<ref name=Wells49/> | |||
J. Neville Birdsall in 1984 argued that the whole of the ''Testimonium Flavianum'' was a Christian interpolation in The Manson Memorial Lecture, on the grounds of linguistics.<ref>J. Neville Birdsall, "The Continuing Enigma of Josephus's Testimony about Jesus", pages 609-622, ''Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library'' (1984-1985).</ref> | |||
A further internal argument against the ''Testimonium's'' authenticity is the context of the passage in the ''Antiquities of the Jews''.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Some scholars argue that the passage is an intrusion into the progression of Josephus' text at the point in which it appears in the ''Antiquities'' and breaks the thread of the narrative.<ref name=Wells49>''The Jesus Legend'' by George Albert Wells and R. Joseph Hoffman 1996 ISBN 0-8126-9334-5 pages 49-56</ref> | |||
==Slavonic Josephus== | |||
=====External Arguments===== | |||
The three references found in ] and | |||
]]] | |||
] of the ''Antiquities'' do not appear in any other versions of Josephus' '']'' except for a ] version of the ''Testimonium Flavomium'' (at times called ''Testimonium Slavonium'') which surfaced in the west at the beginning of the 20th century, after its discovery in Russia at the end of the 19th century.<ref name="Robert E. Van Voorst page 85"/><ref name=Creed/> | |||
Origen's statement in his ''Commentary on Matthew'' (]) that Josephus" did not accept Jesus as Christ", is usually seen as a confirmation of the generally accepted fact that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}}<ref name=JContext91 >Jesus in his Jewish context'' by Géza Vermès 2003 ISBN 0-334-02915-5 pages 91-92</ref> This forms a key external argument against the total authenticity of the ''Testimonium'' in that Josephus, as a Jew, would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and the reference to "he was Christ" in the ''Testimonium'' must be a Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336-337}} Based on this observation alone, ] calls the case for the total authenticity of the ''Testimonium'' "hopeless".{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336-337}} Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the ''Testimonium'', while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336-337}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|pp=509-511}} | |||
] | |||
A different set of external arguments against the authenticity of the ''Testimonium'' (either partial or total) are "]", e.g. that although twelve Christian authors refer to Josephus before Eusebius in 324 AD, none mentions the ''Testimonium''.<ref name=Rothchild274 >"Echo of a whisper" by Clare Rothchild in ''Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity'' by David Hellholm 2010 ISBN 3-11-024751-8 page 274</ref>{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=57}} Given earlier debates by Christian authors about the existence of Jesus, e.g. in ]'s 2nd century '']'', it would have been expected that the passage from Josephus would have been used as a component of the arguments.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=431}} | |||
The existence of the documents that led to the discovery of the ''Slavonic Josephus'' was first brought to light by A. N. Popov in Russia in 1866.<ref name=Creed>John Martin Creed "The Slavonic Version of Josephus' History of the Jewish War", ] Vol. 25, No. 4, Oct., 1932</ref> In 1879 I. Sreznevski pointed out that the language used was not Bulgarian or Serbian, but comparable to the Russian chronicles.<ref name=Leeming/> At about the same time as Sreznevski, the subject was also studied by E. Barsov and by the end of the 19th century knowledge of the existence of the documents was established in the west via its listing by Niese and Destinon in 1894.<ref name=Creed/> The Estonian scholar Alexandeer Berendts published a German translation in 1906 and proposed the theory that the Slavonic version had been derived from the original ] of Josephus.<ref name=Creed/> However, ] states that the ''Slavonic Josephus'' "includes so many sensationalized accretions" that most modern scholars consider it as a highly colored translation and paraphrase, and do not consider it to be true to the original Aramaic.<ref name=Maier11>>''The new complete works of Josephus'' by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier 1999 ISBN 082542948X page 11</ref> | |||
The ''Slavonic Josephus'' was defended in 1926 as authentic by ] and was later supported by George Williamson.<ref name=VVoorst87 /> Robert Van Voorst states that apart from Eisler's controversial book and Williamson statements, "no strong defense has been made" for the authenticity of the ''Slavonic Josephus''.<ref name=VVoorst87 /> Henry Leeming states that Eisler at times used insufficiently substantiated material which were then discredited. Leeming adds that Eisler's ] attempts to reverse translate from Old Russian to Greek were shown to be "extremely flimsy".<ref name=Leeming>''Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version'' by Flavius Josephus, Henry Leeming, Lyubov V. Osinkina, Katherine Leeming 2003 ISBN 9004114386 pages 1-4</ref> Van Voorst states that the contents of the passages in the ''Slavonic Josephus'' show that "they are Christian compositions and that they do not provide an authentic textual alternative to the main ''Testomonium Flavianum''".<ref name=VVoorst87 >Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). ''Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence'' Eerdmans Publishing' ISBN 0802843689 pages 87-88</ref> | |||
Even after Eusebius' 324 AD reference, it is not until ]'s '']'' (c. 392 AD) that the passage from Josephus is referenced again, even though the ''Testimonium'''s reference to Jesus would seem appropriate in the works of many intervening ] authors.<ref name=Rothchild274 />{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=57}} Scholars also point to the silence of ] as late as the 9th century, and the fact that he does not mention the ''Testimonium'' at all in his broad review of Josephus.<ref>''Jewish historiography and iconography in early and Medieval Christianity'' by Heinz Schreckenberg, Kurt Schubert Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991 page 39</ref> | |||
] states that the consideration of the ''Slavonic Josephus'' should be removed from the scholarly discussions of the first century, for it only pertains to the ] elements of the 10th and 11th centuries.<ref name=Bowman >] "Josephus in Byzantium" in ''Josephus, Judaism and Christianity'' by ], Gōhei Hata 1997 ISBN 9004085548 pages 373-374</ref> The ''Cambridge History of Judaism'' states that the Slavonic version includes statements which Josephus could have hardly written, and that recent scholarly opinion dismisses the ''Slavonic Josephus'' as less than authentic, but an 11th century creation as an idealogical struggle against the ].<ref name=Camb918>''The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3: The Early Roman Period'' by William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy 2000 ISBN 0521243777 page 918</ref> Van Voorst states that the ''Slavonic Josephus'' at times focuses on blaming Pilate and the Jews, to the point of suggesting that the Jews and not the Romans crucified Jesus.<ref name=VVoorst87 /> | |||
A separate argument from silence against the total or partial authenticity of the ''Testimonium'' is that a 5th or 6th century table of contents of Josephus (although selective) makes no mention of it.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=57}} | |||
] states the question "is Josephus the author of the additions and modifications in the Slavonic version" has usually received a negative answer.<ref name=Feld339>''Josephus, Judaism and Christianity'' by ], Gōhei Hata 1997 ISBN 9004085548 page 339</ref> ] states that although some scholars had in the past supported the ''Slavonic Josephus'', "to my knowledge no one today believes that they contain anything of value for Jesus research".<ref name=Evans451>''Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research'' by Bruce Chilton and ] 1998 ISBN 9004111425 page 451</ref> | |||
A final argument from silence relates to Josephus' own writings and questions the authenticity of ''Testimonium'' based on the fact that it has no parallel in the '']'', which includes a discussion of Pontius Pilate at about the same level of detail.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=88}}{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=826}} | |||
G. A. Wells has argued that the existence of Christian interpolations within the Slavonic version of the ''Jewish War'' prove that other works of Josephus also contain Christian interpolations.<ref name="Christians page 192"/> In 1948 ] stated that "There is no passage in Josephus which mentions Jesus" and "The Slavonic Josephus which is a paraphrase of Josephus's ''Wars of the Jews'', was composed for the purpose of giving a Christian version of Josephus in Greek. Hence we find in it many Christian interpolations."<ref>Solomon Zeitlin, "The Hoax of the 'Slavonic Josephus'", in ''The Jewish Quarterly Review'', pages 172, 177; October 1948, New Series, Vol. 39, No. 2</ref> | |||
=====Timing of the interpolations===== | |||
Kenneth Olson has argued that the entire ''Testimonium'' must have been forged by Eseubuis himself, basing his argument on textual similarities between the ''Testimonium'' and Eseubuis' writings in the ''Demonstrations of the Gospels''.{{sfn|Olson|1999}} | |||
Zvi Baras, on the other hand, believes that the ''Testimonium'' was subject to interpolation before Eseubuis.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}} Baras believes that Origen had seen the original ''Testimonium'' but that the ''Testimonium'' seen by Origen had no negative reference to Jesus, else Origen would have reacted against it.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}} Baras states that the interpolation in the ''Testimonium'' took place between Origen and Eusebius.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=340}} | |||
Paul Maier states that a comparison of Eusebius' reference with the 10th century Arabic version of the ''Testimonium'' due to ] indicates that the Christian interpolation present in the ''Testimonium'' must have come early, before Eseubuis.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336-337}} Richard Van Voorst also states that the interpolation likely took place some time between Origen and Eusebius.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}} | |||
===Arguments in favor of authenticity=== | |||
====The James Passage==== | |||
] states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged"<ref>'Josephus, Judaism and Christianity'' by ], Gōhei Hata 1997 ISBN 90-04-08554-8 pages 55-57</ref> Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.<ref>Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gōhei. ''Josephus, Judaism and Christianity''. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-08554-8. page 56</ref> Feldman states that it would make no sense for Origen to show amazement that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Christ (]), if Josephus had not referred to Jesus at all.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}} Paul L. Maier states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage"{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284-285}} Zvi Baras also states that most modern scholars consider the James passage to be authentic.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=341}} | |||
]]] | |||
According to ] the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=83}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst states that the James passage fits well in the context in the ''Antiquities'' and an indication for its authenticity is the lack of the laudatory language that a Christian interpolator would have used to refer to Jesus as "the Lord", or a similar term.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=83-84}} Van Voorst also states that the use of a neutral term "called Christ" which neither denies nor affirms Jesus as the Messiah points to authenticity, and indicates that Josephus used it to distinguish Jesus from the many other people called Jesus at the time, in the same way that James is distinguished, given that it was also a common name.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=83-84}} | |||
] states that although a few scholars have questioned the James passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic", and that among the several accounts of the death of James the account in Josephus is generally considered to be historically the most reliable.<ref name=Bauckham >] "FOR WHAT OFFENSE WAS JAMES PUT TO DEATH?" in ''James the Just and Christian origins'' by Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans 1999 ISBN 90-04-11550-1 pages 199-203</ref> Bauckham states that the method of killing James by stoning, and the description provided by Josephus via the assembly of the Sanhedrin of judges are consistent with the policies of the Temple authorities towards the early Christian Church at the time.(Bauckham page 231) | |||
] considers the James passage to be authentic and states that the James passage attests to the existence of Jesus as a historical person, and that his followers considered him the Messiah.(Köstenberger pages 104-105) Köstenberger states that the statement by Josephus that some people recognized Jesus as the Messiah is consistent with the grammar of Josephus elsewhere but does not imply that Josephus himself considered Jesus the Messiah.(Köstenberger pages 104-105) Köstenberger concurs with John Meier that it is highly unlikely for the passage to be a Christian interpolation given that in New Testament texts James is referred to as the "brother of the Lord" rather than the "brother of Jesus", and that a Christian interpolator would have provided a more detailed account at that point.(Köstenberger pages 104-105) | |||
Claudia Setzer states that few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage, partly based on the observation that a Chrisian interpolator would have provided more praise for James.<ref name=Setzer108 >''Jewish responses to early Christians'' by Claudia Setzer 1994 ISBN 0-8006-2680-X pages 108-109</ref> Setzer states that the passage indicates that Josephus, a Jewish historian writing towards the end of the first century, could use a neutral tone towards Christians, with some tones of sympathy, implying that they may be worthy of Roman protection.<ref name=Setzer108 /> | |||
] states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical.(Painter pages 139-142). Painter discusses the role of ] and the background to the passage, and states that after being deposed as High Priest for killing James and being replaced by ], Ananus had maintained his influence within Jerusalem through bribery.(Painter page 136) Painter points out that as described in the ] (]) Ananus was bribing both ] and Jesus the son of Damnaeus so that his men could take the tithes of other priests outside Jerusalem, to the point that some of whom then starved to death.(Painter pages 139-142). Philip Carrington states that there is no reason to question the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James, and elaborates the background by stating that Ananus continued to remain a power within the Jewish circles at the time even after being deposed, and that it is likely that the charges brought against James by Ananus were not only because of his Christian association but because he objected to the oppressive policies against the poor; hence explaining the later indignation of the more moderate Jewish leaders.<ref>''The Early Christian Church: Volume 1, The First Christian Church'' by Philip Carrington 2011 ISBN 0-521-16641-1 Cambridge University Press pages 187-189</ref> | |||
====John the Baptist==== | |||
], by ], 1750.]] | |||
] states that almost all modern scholars consider the Josephus passage on John to be authentic in its entirety, and that what Josephus states about John fits well both with the general depiction of John in the New Testament and within the historical context of the activities of other men, their preachings and their promises during that period.{{sfn|Evans|2006|pp=55-58}} | |||
Louis Feldman, who believes the Josephus passage on John is authentic, states that Christian interpolators would have been very unlikely to have devoted almost twice as much space to John (163 words) as to Jesus (89 words).<ref>''Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered'' by Louis H. Feldman 2006 ISBN 90-04-14906-6 pages 330-331</ref> Feldman also states that a Christian interpolator would have likely altered Josephus' passage about John the Baptist to make the circumstances of the death of John become similar to the New Testament, and to indicate that John was a forerunner of Jesus. | |||
<ref>Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gōhei. ''Josephus, Judaism and Christianity''. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-08554-8. page 56</ref> | |||
] states that the accounts of Josephus and the New Testament regarding John the Baptist are closer than they may appear at a first reading.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=377}} Dunn states that Josephus positions John as a righteous preacher (''dikaiosyne'') who encourages his followers to practice "righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God" and that ] similarly calls John "a righteous (''dikaios'') and holy man".{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=377}} Dunn states that Antipas likely saw John as a figure whose asceic lifestyle and calls for moral reform could give rise to a poplar uprising on moral grounds, as both Josephus and the New Testament suggest.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=377}} | |||
Justin Meggitt states that there are fundamental similarities between the Josephus' portrayal of John the Baptist and the New Testament narrative in that in both accounts John is positioned as a preacher of morality, not as someone who had challenged the political authority of ].{{sfn|Meggitt|2003|p=508}} W. E. Nunnally states that the John passage is considered authentic and that Josephus' emphasis on the egalitarian nature of John's teachings fit well into the biblical and historical traditions.<ref>W. E. Nunnally "Deeds of Kindness" in ''The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Religion and Social Justice'' by Michael D. Palmer and Stanley M. Burgess 2012 ISBN 1-4051-9547-9 page 303</ref> | |||
====Testimonium Flavianum==== | |||
=====The three perspectives===== | |||
] | |||
], and separately Zvi Baras state that scholars generally fall into three camps over the authenticity of the ''Testimonium'': 1. It is entirely authentic, 2. It is entirely a Christian forgery and 3. It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus' authentic material about Jesus.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336-337}}{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=339}} | |||
Paul Maier states that the first case is generally seen as hopeless, given that a Jew, Josephus would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and that the second option is hardly tenable given the presence of the reference in all Greek manuscripts; thus a large majority of modern scholars accept the third alternative, i.e. partial authenticity.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336-337}} Baras adds that the third position is more plausible because it accepts parts of the passage as genuine, but discounts other parts as interpolations.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=339}} ] (and separately ]) state that most modern scholars accept the position that the ''Testimonium'' is partially authentic, had a kernel with an authentic reference to Jesus, and that the analysis of its content and style support this conclusion.<ref name=Evans43 >''Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies'' by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 43</ref>{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|pp=509-511}} | |||
While before the advent of ] most scholars considered the ''Testimonium'' entirely authentic, thereafter the number of supporters of full authenticity declined.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89-90}} However, most scholars now accept partial authenticity and many attempt to reconstruct their own version of the authentic kernel, and scholars such as ] have argued that the overall characterizations of Jesus in the ''Testimonium'' are in accord with the style and approach of Josephus.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89-90}} <ref name=Henry185>''Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition'' by Henry Wansbrough 2004 ISBN 0-567-04090-9 page 185</ref><ref name=Kellum104 >''The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament'' by Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum and Charles L Quarles 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4365-7 pages 104-108</ref><ref name=Geza35 /><ref name=Evans316>''Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies'' by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0-391-04118-5 page 316</ref> | |||
=====Origen and Eusebius===== | |||
The writings of Origen make no reference to the ''Testimonium''. However, Louis Feldman has presented arguments that Origen may have seen a copy of the Testimonium (in a different form than quoted by Esebeius) and not commented on it for there was no need to complain about its tone.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=823}} Feldman states that "The most likely assumption is, then, that the 'Testimonium' as read by Origen contained historical data in a neutral form."{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=823}} | |||
Zvi Baras also believes that Origen had seen the ''Testimonium'', and that at the time of Origen the ''Testimonium''included no interpolations.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340-341}} Baras believes that the ''Testimonium'' seen by Origen had a neutral tone, and included no negative tone towards Christians, and hence required no reaction from Origen.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340-341}} Baras states that the neutral tone of the ''Testimonium'' seen by Origen was then modified between the time of Origen and Eusebius.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340-341}} | |||
=====Arguments in favor of partial authenticity===== | |||
] | |||
Some arguments in favor of partial authenticity rely on the language used in the Testimonim, e.g. that the passage calls Jesus "a wise man" which is not laudatory enough for an interpolator, neither is the reference to "amazing deeds".{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89-90}} According to Van Voorst, the statement "those that loved him at the first did not forsake him" has the characteristics of Josephus' writing and points to the continuation of Christianity. Van Voorst states that this sentence argues for the continuation of Christianity based on the love for its leader, not the reported appearances after his death.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89-90}} Van Voorst states that it is hard to imagine that the phrase "receive the truth with pleasure" used in the ''Testimonium'' is the work of a Christian interpolator, for Christian writers generally avoid the use of the word "pleasure (ηδονή in Greek) in a positive sense due to its association with ].{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=90}} | |||
] states that there is strong evidence that parts of the ''Testimonium'' are authentic, and that the comparison of the Greek versions with the Arabic version (discovered by ] in the 1970s) provides an indication of the original Josephan text.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104-108}} Köstenberger states that many modern scholars believe that the Arabic version reflects the state of Josephus' original text before it was subject to Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104-108}} Köstenberger adds that the passage includes vocabulary that is typically Josephan and the style is consistent with that of Josephus.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104-108}} Köstenberger (and separately Van Voorst) state that the Josephus' reference to the large number of followers of Jesus during his public ministry is unlikely to have been due to a Christian scribe familiar with the New Testamant accounts, and is hence unlikely to be an interpolation.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104-108}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=90}} | |||
Regarding the arguments from silence about the scarcity of references to Josephus prior to Origen and Eusebius , ] states that Josephus was ignored by early Christian writers before Origen because they were not sufficiently learned, and not sophisticated enough in historical matters.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=53-57}} | |||
] and ] state that the general acceptance of the authenticity of the James passage lends support to the partial authenticity of the ''Testimonium'' in that the brief reference to "Jesus, who was called Christ" in ''Antiquities'' ] "clearly implies a prior reference" and that "in all probability the ''Testimnium'' is that prior reference".{{sfn|Chilton|Evans|1998|pp=187-198}} ] views the reference to Jesus in the death of James passage as "the aforementioned Christ", thus relating that passage to the ''Testimonium'', which he views as the first reference to Jesus in the works on Josephus.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=55}} ] concurs with the analysis of Feldman and states that Josephus' first reference was the ''Testimonium''.{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284-285}} ] also considers the "who was called Christ" reference in the James passage as the second reference to Jesus in the ''Antiquities'' and states that the first reference is likely to be the ''Testimonium''.<ref name=Geza35>''Jesus in the Jewish World'' by ] 2011 ISBN 0-334-04379-4 pages 35-43</ref><ref>''The Changing Faces of Jesus'' by Geza Vermaes 2001 ISBN 0-670-89451-6 page 276</ref> | |||
Claudia Setzer, who believes in the authenticity of a kernel in the Testimonium, states that while "tribe is an odd way to describe Christians" it does not necessarily have negative connotations.<ref name=Setzer106 >''Jewish responses to early Christians'' by Claudia Setzer 1994 ISBN 0-8006-2680-X pages 106-107</ref> Setzer argues for the existence of an authentic kernel because "the style and vocabulary are Josephan" and specific parts (e.g. the use of "wise man") are not what one would expect from a Christian forger.<ref name=Setzer106 /> Setzer argues that the Testimonium indicates that Josephus had heard of Jesus and the basic elements surrounding his death, and that he saw Jesus as primarily a miracle worker.<ref name=Setzer106 /> Van Voorst also states that calling Christians a "tribe" would have been very out of character for a Christian scribe, while Josephus has used it to refer both to Jewish and Christian groups.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=89-90}} | |||
Alice Whealy, who supports the partial authenticity of the ''Testimonium'', has rejected the arguments by Kenneth Olson regarding the total fabrication of the ''Testimonium'' by Eusebius, stating that Olson's analysis includes inaccurate readings of both the works of Josephus and Eusebius, as well as logical flaws in his argument.<ref name=Whealey2007>Alice Whealey "Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea and the ''Testimonium Flavianum'' in ''Josephus Und Das Neue Testament'' by Christfried Bottrich and Jens Hezer 2007 ISBN 3-16-149368-0 pages 73-76 </ref> | |||
] states that an argument in favor of the partial authenticity of the ''Testimonium'' is that the passage does not exaggerate the role played by the Jewish leaders in the death of Jesus.<ref name=Evans43 /> According to Evans, if the passage had been an interpolation after the emergence of conflicts between Jews and Christians, it would have had a more accusative tone, but in its current form reads as one would expect it to read for a passage composed by Josephus towards the end of the first century.<ref name=Evans43 /> | |||
] believes in the partial authenticity of the ''Testimonium'' and the existence of a reference to Jesus within it.<ref name=Henry185 /><ref name=Geza35/> Vermes states that if the ''Testimonium'' had been the work of a Christian forger, it would have placed blame on the Jewish leaders, but as is it is "perfectly in line" with the atitude of Josephus towards Pilate.<ref name=Geza35/> Vermes also states that the detached depiction of the followers of Jesus is not the work of a Christian interpolator.<ref name=Geza35/> Vermes calls the Jesus notice in the ''Testimonium'' a "veritable tour de force" in which Josephus plays the role of a neutral witness.<ref name=Geza35/> | |||
=====Reconstruction of an authentic kernel===== | |||
] | |||
] states that most modern scholars believe that the ''Testimonium'' is partially authentic, and has a reference to Jesus.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} However, he states that scholars are divided on the tone of the original reference and while some scholars believe that it had a negative tone which was softened by Christian interpolators, others believe that it had a neutral tone, in keeping with the style and approach of Josephus regarding the issue.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} According to Van Voorst, scholars who support the negative reconstruction contend that the reference read something like "source of further trouble in Jesus a wise man" and that it stated "he was the so-called Christ".{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst states that most scholars support a neutral reconstruction which states "Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man" and includes no reference to "he was the Christ".{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst states that if the original references to Jesus had had a negative tone, the Christian scribes would have likely deleted it entirely.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst also states that the neural reconstruction fits better with the Arabic ''Testimonium'' discovered by ] in the 1970s.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}} Van Voorst states that the neutral reconstruction is supported by the majority of scholars because it involves far less conjectural wording and fits better with the style of Josephus.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} | |||
] states that if the three elements "lawful to call him a man", "he was the Christ" and the reference to the resurrection are removed from the ''Testimonium'' the rest of the passage flows smoothly within the context, fits the style of Josephus and is likely to be authentic.<ref name=Blomberg434 >''Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey'' by Craig L. Blomberg 2009 ISBN 0-8054-4482-3 pages 434-435</ref> Blomberg adds that after the removal of these three elements (which are likely interpolations) from the Greek versions the remaining passage fits well with the Arabic version and supports the authenticity of the reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate.<ref name=Blomberg434 /> ] also states that the removal of some elements from the ''Testimonium'' produces a passage that is likely to be an authentic reference to the death of Jesus.<ref name=JBGreen89>] "Crucifixion" in the ''The Cambridge Companion to Jesus'' edited by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 ISBN 0-521-79678-4 page 89</ref> | |||
] states that the works of Josephus include two separate references to Jesus and although there are some interpolations in the ''Testomonium'', there is "broad consensus" among scholars regarding the nature of an authentic reference to Jesus in the ''Testimonium'' and what the passage would look like without the interpolations.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}} Based on the reconstruction, the original passage would have read like:{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}}<ref name=JBGreen89/> | |||
:Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. | |||
In this passage, which is based on ]'s reconstruction, Jesus is called a "wise man" but "lawful to call him a man" and "he was the Christ" are removed, as is the reference to the resurrection.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|p=141}}<ref name=JBGreen89/> | |||
] has performed a detailed analysis of the ''Testomonium'' and modified it to remove what he considers the interpolations.<ref name=Henry185 /><ref name=Geza35/> In Vermes' reconstruction "there was Jesus a wise man" is retained, but the reference to "''he was the Christ''" is changed to "''he was called the Christ''" and the resurrection reference is omitted.<ref name=Geza35/> Vermes states that the ''Testomonium'' provides Josephus' authentic portrayal of Jesus, depicting him as a wise teacher and miracle worker with an enthusiastic group of followers who remained faithful to him after his crucifixion by Pilate, up to the time of Josephus.<ref name=Geza35/> | |||
====Relationship to the Jewish Wars==== | |||
]'' in Italian]] | |||
] states that it is significant that the passages on James, John and the ''Testimonium'' are found in the ''Antiquities'' and not in the ''Jewish Wars'', but provides three explanations for their absence from the ''Jewish Wars''.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=826}} One explanation is that the ''Antiquities'' covers the time period involved at a greater length than the ''Jewish Wars''.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=826}} The second explanation is that during the gap between the writing of the ''Jewish Wars'' (c. 70 AD) and ''Antiquities'' (after 90 AD) Christians had become more important in Rome and were hence given attention in the ''Antiquities''.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=826}} Another explanation is that the passages were added to the ''Antiquities'' to highlight the power of the ], but he considers the last explanation less likely than the others.{{sfn|Feldman|1984|p=826}} | |||
One of the arguments against the authenticity of the James passage has been that in the ''Jewish Wars'' Josephus portrays the High Priest ] in a positive manner, while in the ''Antiquities'' he writes of Ananus in a negative tone.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}} Louis Feldman rejects these arguments against the authenticity of the James passage and states that in several other unrelated cases the ''Jewish War'' also differs from the ''Antiquities'', and that an interpolator would have made the two accounts correspond more closely to each other, not make them differ.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}} | |||
The twenty year gap between the writing of the ''Jewish Wars'' and the ''Antiquities'' has also been used to explain some of the differences in tone between them.<ref name=Thoma /> ] provides an explanation for this based on the observation that Josephus may have learned of the details of the actions of Annanus in the twenty year gap between the writing of the Jewish Wars and the Antiquities, and thus avoided a positive tone when writing of Ananus in the ''Antiquities''.<ref name=Thoma >"The High Priesthood in the Judgement of Josephus" by Clemens Thoma, in ''Josephus, the Bible and History by Louis Feldman and Gohei Hata 1977 ISBN 90-04-08931-4 pages 212-213</ref> | |||
] states that the difference in the context for the ''Jewish Wars'' and the ''Antiquities'' may also account for some of the differences in tone between them, e.g. when writing of Ananus in a positive tone in the ''Jewish Wars'' the context was Ananus' prudence in avoiding a war and hence Josephus considered that a positive aspect.{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=157}} However, when writing in the ''Antiquities'' about the actions of Ananus which resulted in his demotion from the High Priesthood, the context required the manifestation of a negative aspect of Ananus' character.{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=157}} | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
Line 246: | Line 108: | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
== |
==References== | ||
{{Reflist|2}} | {{Reflist|2}} | ||
==Bibliography== | |||
{{refbegin|30em|indent=yes}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Baras | |||
| first=Zvi | |||
| title=Josephus, Judaism and Christianity | |||
| chapter=The ''Testimonium Flavianum'' and the Martyrdom of James | |||
| editor1-last=Feldman | |||
| editor1-first=Louis H. | |||
| editor1-link=Louis Feldman | |||
| editor2-last=Hata | |||
| editor2-first=Gōhei | |||
| year=1987 | |||
| publisher=BRILL | |||
| isbn=90-04-08554-8 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Bartlett | |||
| first=John R. | |||
| title=Jews in the Hellenistic World: Volume 1, Part 1 | |||
| year=1985 | |||
| isbn=0-521-28551-8 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Bauckham | |||
| first=Richard | |||
| authorlink=Richard Bauckham | |||
| editor1-first=Bruce | |||
| editor1-last=Chilton | |||
| editor2-first=Craig A. | |||
| editor2-last=Evans | |||
|editor2-link=Craig A. Evans | |||
| title=James the Just and Christian origins | |||
| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=5SHbjAKaBy0C | |||
| year=1999 | |||
| publisher=BRILL | |||
| pages=199–232 | |||
| chapter=For What Offense was James put to Death? | |||
| isbn=978-90-04-11550-7 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Bowman | |||
| first=Steven B. | |||
| authorlink=Steven B. Bowman | |||
| title=Josephus, Judaism and Christianity | |||
| chapter=Jewish Responses to Byzantine Polemics from the Ninth through the Eleventh Centuries | |||
| editor-last=Garber | |||
| editor-first=Zev | |||
| title=The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation | |||
| publisher=] | |||
| year=2011 | |||
| isbn=978-1-55753-579-5 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Bowman | |||
| first=Steven B. | |||
| authorlink=Steven B. Bowman | |||
| title=Josephus, Judaism and Christianity | |||
| chapter=Josephus in Byzantium | |||
| editor1-last=Feldman | |||
| editor1-first=Louis H. | |||
| editor1-link=Louis Feldman | |||
| editor2-last=Hata | |||
| editor2-first=Gōhei | |||
| year=1987 | |||
| publisher=BRILL | |||
| isbn=90-04-08554-8 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last1= Eddy | |||
| first1= Paul | |||
| last2= Boyd | |||
| first2= Gregory | |||
| title=The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition | |||
| year=2007 | |||
| isbn=0-8010-3114-1 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Bromiley | |||
| first=Geoffrey W. | |||
| title=International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J | |||
| year=1982 | |||
| isbn=0-8028-3782-4 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last1=Chilton | |||
| first1=Bruce | |||
| last2=Evans | |||
| first2=Craig A. | |||
| authorlink2=Craig A. Evans | |||
| title=Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research | |||
| year=1998 | |||
| isbn=90-04-11142-5 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite journal | |||
| last=Creed | |||
| first=John Martin | |||
| title=The Slavonic Version of Josephus' History of the Jewish War | |||
| journal=The Harvard Theological Review | |||
| volume= 25 | |||
| issue= 4 | |||
| month=Oct. | |||
| year=1932 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Dapaah | |||
| first=Daniel S. | |||
| title=The relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth | |||
| year=2005 | |||
| isbn=0-7618-3109-6 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| editor-last=Davies | |||
| editor-first=William David | |||
| title=The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3: The Early Roman Period | |||
| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=MA-4VX5gWS4C&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Bibliogarphical%20and%20lexical%20aids%20to%20the%20study%20of%20Josephus&f=false | |||
| year=2000 | |||
| isbn=0-521-24377-7 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Dunn | |||
| first=James | |||
| authorlink=James Dunn (theologian) | |||
| title=Jesus remembered | |||
| year=2003 | |||
| isbn=0-8028-3931-2 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Evans | |||
| first=Craig A. | |||
| authorlink=Craig A. Evans | |||
| chapter=Josephus on John the Baptist | |||
| year=2006 | |||
| title=The Historical Jesus in Context | |||
| editor1-first=Amy-Jill | |||
| editor1-last=Levine | |||
| editor2= et al. | |||
| publisher=Princeton Univ Press | |||
| isbn=978-0-691-00992-6 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Evans | |||
| first=Craig A. | |||
| authorlink=Craig A. Evans | |||
| title=Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies | |||
| year=2001 | |||
| isbn=0-391-04118-5 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Feldman | |||
| first=Louis H. | |||
| authorlink=Louis Feldman | |||
| title=Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered | |||
| year=2006 | |||
| isbn=90-04-14906-6 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Feldman | |||
| first=Louis H. | |||
| authorlink=Louis Feldman | |||
| editor-last=Freedman | |||
| editor-first=David Noel | |||
| title=Anchor Bible Dictionary | |||
| chapter=Josephus | |||
| volume=3 | |||
| pages=990–1 | |||
| year=1992 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last1=Feldman | |||
| first1=Louis H. | |||
| authorlink1=Louis Feldman | |||
| last2=Hata | |||
| first2=Gōhei | |||
| title=Josephus, the Bible, and history, | |||
| publisher=BRILL | |||
| year=1989 | |||
| isbn=978-90-04-08931-0 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| editor1-last=Feldman | |||
| editor1-first=Louis H. | |||
| editor1-link=Louis Feldman | |||
| editor2-last=Hata | |||
| editor2-first=Gōhei | |||
| title=Josephus, Judaism and Christianity | |||
| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=f3KwlJSQr4cC | |||
| accessdate=13 February 2012 | |||
| year=1987 | |||
| publisher=BRILL | |||
| isbn=978-90-04-08554-1 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Feldman | |||
| first=Louis H. | |||
| authorlink=Louis Feldman | |||
| editor1-last=Temporini | |||
| editor1-first=Hildegard | |||
| editor2-last=Haase | |||
| editor2-first=Wolfgang | |||
| chapter=Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings and his Significance | |||
| pages=763–771 | |||
| title=Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Part 2 | |||
| year=1984 | |||
| isbn=3-11-009522-X | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| author1=Flavius Josephus | |||
| authorlink1=Flavius Josephus | |||
| last2=Leeming | |||
| first2=Henry | |||
| last3=Osinkina | |||
| first3=Lyubov V. | |||
| last4=Leeming | |||
| first4=Katherine | |||
| title=Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N.A. Meščerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript Translated into English by H. Leeming and L. Osinkina. | |||
| year=2003 | |||
| ref={{harvid|Flavius Josephus|Leeming|Osinkina|Leeming|2003}} | |||
| isbn=978-90-04-11438-8 | |||
| location=Leiden | |||
| publisher=Brill | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| author1=Flavius Josephus | |||
| authorlink1=Flavius Josephus | |||
| last2=Whiston | |||
| first2=William | |||
| last3=Maier | |||
| first3=Paul L. | |||
| title=The New Complete Works of Josephus | |||
| publisher=Kregel Academic | |||
| date= May 1999 | |||
| isbn=0-8254-2948-X | |||
| ref={{harvid|Flavius Josephus|Whiston|Maier|1999}} | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| author1=Flavius Josephus | |||
| authorlink1=Flavius Josephus | |||
| last2=Maier | |||
| first2=Paul L. | |||
| title=Josephus, the essential works: a condensation of Jewish antiquities and The Jewish war | |||
| date= December 1995 | |||
| publisher=Kregel Academic | |||
|isbn=978-0-8254-3260-6 | |||
| ref={{harvid|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995}} | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| editor1-last=Freedman | |||
| editor1-first=David Noel | |||
| editor2-last=Myers | |||
| editor2-first=Allen C. | |||
| editor3-last=Beck | |||
| editor3-first=Astrid B. | |||
| title=Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible | |||
| publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. | |||
| year=2000 | |||
| isbn=90-5356-503-5 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Gillman | |||
| first=Florence Morgan | |||
| title=Herodias: at home in that fox's den | |||
| year=2003 | |||
| isbn=0-8146-5108-9 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Habermas | |||
| first=Gary R. | |||
| title=The Historical Jesus | |||
| year=1996 | |||
| isbn=0-89900-732-5 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Harding | |||
| first=Mark | |||
| title=Early Christian Life and Thought in Social Context | |||
| year=2003 | |||
| publisher=Sheffield Academic Press | |||
| isbn=0-8264-5604-9 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Hoehner | |||
| first=Harold W. | |||
| title=Herod Antipas | |||
| year=1983 | |||
| isbn=0-310-42251-5 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Jensen | |||
| first=Morten H. | |||
| title=Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources | |||
| year=2010 | |||
| isbn=978-3-16-150362-7 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last1=Jonas | |||
| first1=Glenn | |||
| last2=Lopez | |||
| first2=Kathryn Muller | |||
| title=Christianity: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Guide | |||
| year=2010 | |||
| publisher=Mercer University Press | |||
| isbn=978-0-88146-204-3 | |||
|ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Knoblet | |||
| first=Jerry | |||
| title=Herod the Great | |||
| year=2005 | |||
| isbn=0-7618-3087-1 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last1=Kostenberger | |||
| first1=Andreas J. | |||
| last2=Kellum | |||
| first2=L. Scott | |||
| last3=Quarles | |||
| first3=Charles L. | |||
| title=The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament | |||
| year=2009 | |||
| isbn=0-8054-4365-7 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite journal | |||
| last=Louth | |||
| first=Andrew | |||
| title=The Date of Eusebius' " Historia Ecclesiastica" | |||
| journal=Journal of Theological Studies | |||
| volume=41 | |||
| issue=1 | |||
| year=1990 | |||
| pages=111–123 | |||
|ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Maier | |||
| first=Paul L. | |||
| authorlink=Paul L. Maier | |||
| title=Eusebius: The Church History | |||
| year=2007 | |||
| isbn=0-8254-3307-X | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| editor-last=Mason | |||
| editor-first=Steve | |||
| title=Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 9, Life of Josephus, Translation and Commentary by Steve Mason | |||
| publisher=Brill | |||
| location=Leiden | |||
| year=2001 | |||
| isbn=90-04-11793-8 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last = McGiffert | |||
| first = Arthur Cushman | |||
| title=Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,'' Series II, Vol. 1 | |||
| editor-last=Schaff | |||
| editor-first=Philip | |||
| editor-link=Philip Schaff | |||
| chapter = Paragraph 7 of "Chapter XI.—Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ" from Book I of Eusebius' "The Church History." | |||
| chapterurl= http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.xi.html | |||
| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=18ikU69I-TwC&dq=Nicene+and+Post-Nicene+Fathers:+Second+Series+Volume+I&hl=en | |||
| accessdate = 14 February 2012 | |||
| year=2007 | |||
| isbn=978-1-60206-508-6 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last= Meggitt | |||
| first= Justin | |||
| chapter = John the Baptist | |||
| editor-last = Houlden | |||
| editor-first = James Leslie | |||
| title=Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia | |||
| volume=1 | |||
| year=2003 | |||
| isbn=1-57607-856-6 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last1=Meyers | |||
| first1=Carol | |||
| last2=Craven | |||
| first2=Toni | |||
| last3=Kraemer | |||
| first3=Ross Shepard | |||
| title=Women in scripture | |||
| year=2001 | |||
| isbn=0-8028-4962-8 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last1=Mitchell | |||
| first1=Margaret M. | |||
| last2=Young | |||
| first2=Frances M. | |||
| title=The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine | |||
|year=2006 | |||
| isbn=0-521-81239-9 | |||
|ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Mizugaki | |||
| first=Wataru | |||
| chapter=Origen and Josephus | |||
| pages=325–335 | |||
| editor1-last=Feldman | |||
| editor1-first=Louis H. | |||
| editor1-link=Louis Feldman | |||
| editor2-last=Hata | |||
| editor2-first=Gōhei | |||
| title=Josephus, Judaism and Christianity | |||
| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=f3KwlJSQr4cC | |||
| accessdate=13 February 2012 | |||
| year=1987 | |||
| publisher=BRILL | |||
| isbn=978-90-04-08554-1 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Murphy | |||
| first=Catherine M. | |||
| |title=John the Baptist: prophet of purity for a new age | |||
| year=2003 | |||
| isbn=0-8146-5933-0 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Neale | |||
| first=John Mason | |||
| title=A History of the Holy Eastern Church | |||
| year=2003 | |||
| isbn=1-59333-045-6 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite journal | |||
| last=Olson | |||
| first=K. A. | |||
| title=Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum | |||
| journal=The Catholic Biblical Quarterly | |||
| volume=61 | |||
| issue=2 | |||
| year=1999 | |||
| page=305 | |||
|ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Painter | |||
| first=John | |||
| authorlink=John Painter (theologian) | |||
| title=Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition | |||
| year=2005 | |||
| isbn=0-567-04191-3 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Painter | |||
| first=John | |||
| authorlink=John Painter (theologian) | |||
| editor1-last=Chilton | |||
| editor1-first=Bruce | |||
| editor2-last=Neusner | |||
| editor2-first=Jacob | |||
| title=The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission | |||
| chapter=Who was James? | |||
| year=2004 | |||
| isbn=0-8146-5152-6 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Pines | |||
| first=Shlomo | |||
| title=An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications | |||
| publisher=Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities | |||
| year=1971 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Rothschild | |||
| first=Claire | |||
| chapter="Echo of a Whisper": The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus' Witness to John the Baptist | |||
| editor1-first=David | |||
| editor1-last=Hellholm | |||
| editor2-first=Tor | |||
| editor2-last=Vegge | |||
| editor3-first=Øyvind | |||
| editor3-last=Norderval | |||
| editor4-first=Christer | |||
| editor4-last=Hellholm | |||
| title=Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity | |||
| publisher=Walter de Gruyter | |||
| year=2011 | |||
| isbn=978-3-11-024751-0 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last1=Schreckenberg | |||
| first1=Heinz | |||
| last2=Schubert | |||
| first2=Kurt | |||
| title=Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature | |||
| volume=2 | |||
| year=1992a | |||
| isbn=90-232-2653-4 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last1=Schreckenberg | |||
| first1=Heinz | |||
| last2=Schubert | |||
| first2=Kurt | |||
| title=Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity | |||
| year=1992b | |||
| isbn=90-232-2653-4 | |||
| publisher=Van Gorcum | |||
| location=Assen | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Van Voorst | |||
| first=Robert E. | |||
| title=Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence | |||
| year=2000 | |||
| isbn=0-8028-4368-9 | |||
| publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last= Van Voorst | |||
| first= Robert | |||
| author-link = Robert Van Voorst | |||
| chapter = Josephus | |||
| editor-last = Houlden | |||
| editor-first = James Leslie | |||
| title= Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia | |||
| volume=1 | |||
| year=2003 | |||
| isbn=1-57607-856-6 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Vermes | |||
| first=Geza | |||
| authorlink=Geza Vermes | |||
| title=Jesus in the Jewish World | |||
| year=2011 | |||
| isbn=0-334-04379-4 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite journal | |||
| last=Wallace-Hadrill | |||
| first=D. S. | |||
| year=2011 | |||
| title=Eusebius of Caesarea and the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII. 63f.) | |||
| journal=The Journal of Ecclesiastical History | |||
| volume=25 | |||
| issue=4 | |||
| page=353 | |||
| doi=10.1017/S0022046900049435 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Wansbrough | |||
| first=Henry | |||
| title=Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition | |||
| year=2004 | |||
| isbn=0-567-04090-9 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Wells | |||
| first=George Albert | |||
| authorlink=George Albert Wells | |||
| title=] | |||
| year=1986 | |||
| publisher=Pemberton Publishing Co. | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=Wells | |||
| first=George Albert | |||
| authorlink=George Albert Wells | |||
| title=The Jesus of the early Christians | |||
| publisher=Pemberton Books | |||
| year=1971 | |||
| isbn=0-301-71014-7 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite book | |||
| last=White | |||
| first=Cynthia | |||
| title=The Emergence of Christianity: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective | |||
| year=2010 | |||
| isbn=0-8006-9747-2 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
:{{cite journal | |||
| last=Zeitlin | |||
| first=Solomon | |||
| authorlink=Solomon Zeitlin | |||
| title=The Hoax of the 'Slavonic Josephus' | |||
| journal=The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series | |||
| volume=39 | |||
| issue=2 | |||
| pages= 172–177 | |||
| month=October | |||
| year=1948 | |||
| ref=harv | |||
}} | |||
{{refend}} | |||
==External links== | ==External links== |
Revision as of 16:19, 30 April 2012
Part of a series on |
Jesus in Christianity |
Jesus in Islam |
Background |
Jesus in history |
Perspectives on Jesus |
Jesus in culture |
Josephus (c.37 – 100, also known as Yosef ben Matityahu, Hebrew יוסף בן מתתיהו, Joseph son of Matthias) was a renowned 1st-century Jewish historian. Despite being a Roman apologist, his writings are seen as providing an important historical and cultural background for the era described in the New Testament. Books 18 to 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews are the most important in this regard. Josephus was fluent in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.
His writings are considered important secular historical documents that could, if genuine, shed light on the origins of Christianity. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18. Scholars are divided over the references, for example L. Michael White has noted that "the parallel sections of Josephus's The Jewish War make no mention of Jesus" with Louis Feldman making the same observation. A small number of critics believe the references involving James and John the Baptist passages could have been later Christian interpolations but the "overwhelming majority" of scholars consider they could be authentic. The discovery of a Russian version of The Jewish War during the beginning of the twentieth century, commonly called the "Slavonic Josephus" or Testimonium Slavianum, is cited as proof that the works of Josephus contained Christian interpolations. The general scholarly view of the present day is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation. Both Christian and Jewish scholars who propose this theory believe the Testimonium originally existed in a different form before being interpolated later by Christians, and restore what they believe was the original version of the passage, with the references to the miraculous material omitted. Each scholar presents his own differing restored version of the Testimonium. These scholars include John P. Meier, Shlomo Pines, Géza Vermes, Paul Winter, James H. Charlesworth, F. F. Bruce, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, page 39 (Eerdmans, 1974) and Claudia Setzer.
Manuscripts
None of the extant manuscripts of Josephus date from the early Christian period, and the first to witness any of the passages relating to Jesus was Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in about 324. The works of Josephus were translated into Latin during the fourth century (possibly by Rufinus), and during the same century the Jewish War was "partially rewritten as an anti-Jewish treatise, known today as Pseudo-Hegesippus, but was considered for over a millenium and a half by many Christians as the ipsissima verba of Josephus to his own people." Variations in the Josephus manuscripts lasted for centuries - known to Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus and the lexicographer, Suidas (flourished circa 1000 AD). During the seventeenth century it was "alleged that Thomas Gale of Cambridge had large Greek fragments of Josephus not in the textus receptus: we do not know what became of them, and we are left to wonder whether their suppression was not deliberate."
The earliest surviving Greek manuscript by Josephus is the Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), dating from the eleventh century, preserved in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan.
James the brother of Jesus
In The Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9 of the Antiquities Josephus refers to the death of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.
In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1) Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus" by order of Ananus ben Ananus, a Herodian-era High Priest who died c. 68 AD. The James referred to in this passage is thought to be the James the first bishop of Jerusalem who is also called James the Just in Christian literature, and to whom the Epistle of James has possibly been attributed. The majority of today's scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as having the highest level of authenticity. Sc the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. The translations of Josephus' writing into other languages have at times included passages that are not found in the Greek texts, raising the possibility of interpolation, but this passage on James is found in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts.
The word "Christ" is only found twice in the entire works of Josephus, both times in the alleged references to Jesus Christ found in Antiquities.
James Carleton Paget has noted the passage about the death of James in Josephus "contrasts strongly with known Christian accounts of his death found for instance in Hegesippus, the Ascents of James, Clement of Alexandria's Hypotyposeis, and the Second Apocalypse of James."
According to Robert E. Van Voorst the overwhelming majority of today's scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as possibly authentic. Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned this passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic". Louis Feldman states that the possible authenticity of this Josephus passage has been "almost universally acknowledged". Paul L. Maier states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage".
The context of this passage is the period after the death of Porcius Festus and the journey to Alexandria by Lucceius Albinus the new Roman Procurator of Judea, who held that position from 62 AD to 64 AD. Because the journey of Albinus to Alexandria concluded at the latest in the summer of 62 AD, the date of the death of James can be assigned with some certainty to around that year. The death of James is also recorded by the 2nd century chronicler Hegesippus whose details diverge from those of Josephus, although the two accounts share similar elements. Modern scholarship generally considers the description of the death of James given in Josephus to be possibly the most historically reliable account.
However, the above passage about Ananus from the Antiquities is directly contradicted by the equivalent account by Josephus of the character of Ananus as given in the Jewish Wars, that does not mention the martyrdom of James and cites the death of Ananus as the reason for the beginning of the destruction of Jerusalem. From the surviving fragments of the Jewish Wars: "I should not be wrong in saying, that with the death of Ananus began the capture of the city, and from that very day on which the Jews beheld their high priest and the guardians of their safety, murdered in the midst of Jerusalem, its bulwarks were laid low, and the Jewish state overthrown."
Since the 19th century, a small number of authors have questioned the authenticity of this Josephus passage, generally in the context of the denial of the existence of Jesus, the inaccuracy of the Christian gospels, or that in The Jewish War Josephus does not mention this incident. Going back to Isaac Mayer Wise in the 19th century these authors have included John Remsburg and Arthur Drews and their views culminated in the writings of George Albert Wells who in 1986 argued that the passage was interpolated by Christian authors within the context that Jesus never existed. However, this has been an ongoing debate and towards the end of the 20th century Wells changed his views and accepted the possible existence of Jesus, although still disputing Christian sources.
Claudia Setzer has noted that "what is striking is that Ananus accuses James of transgressing the Torah, but in the New Testament James appears as an advocate of loyalty to the Torah (Gal. 2:12, Acts 21:20-24)."
Scholars who have doubted the authenticity of the passage about James in Josephus include Tessa Rajak (1983) and Ken Olson (1999).
Carl Clemen commented on the unreliabilty of the passage about James: "especially because Origen, who three times mentions Josephus' account of the death of James, read it differently". G. A. Wells has also commented: "That there has been some tampering with that passage is suggested by the fact that Origen, who refers to Josephus's account of the death of James, claims to have read something rather different on that subject in his text of Josephus from what now stands there."
John the Baptist
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man... Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion... Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.
In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, Chapter 5, 2) Josephus refers to the imprisonment (and death) of John the Baptist by order of Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee and Perea. The context of this reference is the 36 AD defeat of Herod Antipas in his conflict with Aretas IV of Nabatea, which the Jews of the time attributed to misfortune brought about by Herod's unjust execution of John. Almost all modern scholars strongly consider this Josephus passage about John to be possibly authentic in its entirety. Given that the death of John also appears in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the chronology of the gospels and the dates for the Ministry of Jesus.
If authentic, the passage represents the only corroboration of his life outside of early Christian literature. Clare K. Rothschild has noted that "Today we have only three Greek manuscripts of this portion of the Antiquities, the earliest of which dates to the eleventh century" and "absence of Christian tampering does not constitute positive proof of authenticity", also observing "arguments both for and against authenticity of the passage have advantages and flaws of equal weight making a clear decision either way impossible."
Although a small number of authors have questioned this reference, almost all modern scholars consider this Josephus passage about John to be possibly authentic in its entirety. Given that the death of John also appears in the Christian gospels, this passage is considered an important connection between the events Josephus recorded, the chronology of the gospels and the dates for the Ministry of Jesus.
While both the gospels and Josephus refer to Herod Antipas killing John the Baptist, they differ on the details and the motive. While the gospels present this as a consequence of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias in defiance of Jewish law (as in Matthew 14:4, Mark 6:18) Josephus refers to it as a pre-emptive measure by Herod to quell a possible uprising. However, this difference between the motive presented in the gospels and the one stated by Josephus is one of several criteria scholars list in favor of the possible authenticity of the Josephus passage, given that Christian interpolators would have most probably made it consistent with the gospels. Feldman also states that Christian interpolators would have been very unlikely to have devoted almost twice as much space to John (163 words) as to Jesus (89 words).
While Josephus identifies the location of the imprisonment of John as Machaerus, southeast of the mouth of the Jordan river, the gospels mention no location for the place where John was imprisoned. However, according to other historical accounts Machaerus was rebuilt by Herod the Great around 30 AD and then passed to Herod Antipas. The 36 AD date of the conflict with Aretas IV mentioned by Josephus is, however, consistent (and shortly after) the approximate date of the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias estimated by other historical methods.
The differences between the two accounts of John the Baptist found in Josephus and the New Testament have been noted by Claudia Setzer. In Mark it is the daughter of Herodias who instigates the execution of John the Baptist; while John the Baptist in the New Testament preaches a "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4), Josephus describes he rejected that interpretation ("For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins"); and Josephus wrote he was "executed out of fear that he may be a revolutionary, a motif that is absent from the New Testament."
Testimonium Flavianum
Book 18 of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews contains the following disputed passage about Jesus Christ:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Paul L. Maier, former Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University stated scholars fall into three main camps over its authenticity: 1) It is entirely authentic, 2) It is entirely a Christian forgery and 3) It contains Christian interpolations in what was Josephus's authentic material about Jesus.
In Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities Josephus refers to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. This passage is generally called the Testimonium Flavianum. It is the most discussed passage in all of Josephus' writings and perhaps in all ancient literature. Scholars have differing views on the authenticity of the Testimonium. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation. However, Robert E. Van Voorst has cautiously stated that "nothing is certain" (see below). A number of scholars suggest a relationship between the Testimonium and the reference to James the brother of Jesus, viewing the Testimonium as the initial reference to Jesus, which is then referred to again in the passage on James in Book 20.
The Testimonium Flavianumin appears in the Greek version of the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 18, Chapter 3, 3) and refers to Jesus. According to Josephus scholar Louis Feldman, the Testimonium is the most discussed passage in Josephus and perhaps in all ancient literature.
The first person to cite this passage of the Antiquities was Eusebius of Caesarea, writing in about 324. In his Demonstratio Evangelica, he quotes the passage in essentially the same form (he has πολλους των Ιουδαιων instead of πολλους Ιουδαιους, and inserts απο before του Ελληνικου).
As is common with ancient texts, The Antiquities of the Jews survives only in medieval copies. The manuscripts, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century, are all Greek minuscules, and all have been copied by Christian monks. Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor. The text of Antiquities appears to have been transmitted in two halves i.e. (books 1–10 and books 11–20). Other ad hoc copies of the Testimonium also survive, as a quotation in the works of Christian writers.
An ancient Table of Contents of the eighteenth book of the Antiquities omits any reference to the passage about Jesus, as does the Josephus codex of the patriarch Photius. Nor did the Testimonium exist in the Josephus codex used by the Church Father Origen.
Michael J. Cook described the content of the Testimonium as "so adulatory and consistent with what we would expect of a Christian assessment that most scholars dismiss it as a reworking, even an outright forgery, by a later Christian hand (it was the church, not the rabbis, who preserved Josephus' writings)."
Scholars have differing views on the authenticity of the Testimonium. The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally possibly consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation. Although New Testament scholar Robert Van Voorst favours this explanation, he remarks that nothing is certain, and mentions that "other scholars deny the authenticity of the entire passage. Their argument is based on the context of the passage in the Antiquities, the arguably Christian wording of the passage, and Josephus's belief that the Roman general Vespasian was the messiah (Jewish War 6.6.4: 310-13; cf. 3.8.9: 392-408)." In another work about the Testimonium, Van Voorst adds: "Because the few manuscripts of Josephus come from the eleventh century, long after Christian interpolations would have been made, textual criticism cannot help to solve this issue." Despite this, Van Voorst concludes that Josephus was a "unique and carefully neutral, highly accurate and perhaps independent witness to Jesus."
A number of scholars suggest a relationship between the Testimonium and the reference to Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 where Josephus refers to the stoning of "James the brother of Jesus". Louis Feldman views the reference to Jesus in the death of James passage as "the aforementioned Christ", thus relating that passage to the Testimonium, which he views as the first reference to Jesus in the works on Josephus. Paul L. Maier concurs with the analysis of Feldman and states that Josephus' first reference was the Testimonium. Geza Vermes also considers the reference to James as the second reference and states that the first reference is likely to be the Testimonium. Vermes has reconstructed what he considers to be the authentic nucleus of the Testimonium which contains a reference to the cross and one to the early Christians.
Andreas J. Köstenberger states that although some portions of the Testimonium are most likely interpolations, there is strong evidence that some elements of it are authentic. Thomas Yoder Neufeld states that most scholars today consider the core of the Testimonium reference to have been written by Josphus, then subjected to later extensions. Darrell Bock supports the view that most scholars consider the core of the passage to be authentic. Gerd Theissen states that the kernel of the Testimoniun was likely written by Josephus but was extended later. Claudia Setzer states that she agrees with Louis Feldman's view that the core of the Testimonium was written by Josephus, then extended. Paul D. Wegner also states that a case can be made that the kernel of the Testimonium was written by Josephus.
Scholars who do not regard the passage as authentic include Emil Schürer, Robert Eisler and S. G. F. Brandon. Steven Bowman stated that "Eusebius, the polymath Arian biographer of Constantine is considered the likely candidate for this pious fraud."
J. Neville Birdsall in 1984 argued that the whole of the Testimonium Flavianum was a Christian interpolation in The Manson Memorial Lecture, on the grounds of linguistics.
Slavonic Josephus
The three references found in Book 18 and Book 20 of the Antiquities do not appear in any other versions of Josephus' The Jewish War except for a Slavonic version of the Testimonium Flavomium (at times called Testimonium Slavonium) which surfaced in the west at the beginning of the 20th century, after its discovery in Russia at the end of the 19th century.
The existence of the documents that led to the discovery of the Slavonic Josephus was first brought to light by A. N. Popov in Russia in 1866. In 1879 I. Sreznevski pointed out that the language used was not Bulgarian or Serbian, but comparable to the Russian chronicles. At about the same time as Sreznevski, the subject was also studied by E. Barsov and by the end of the 19th century knowledge of the existence of the documents was established in the west via its listing by Niese and Destinon in 1894. The Estonian scholar Alexandeer Berendts published a German translation in 1906 and proposed the theory that the Slavonic version had been derived from the original Aramaic of Josephus. However, Paul L. Maier states that the Slavonic Josephus "includes so many sensationalized accretions" that most modern scholars consider it as a highly colored translation and paraphrase, and do not consider it to be true to the original Aramaic.
The Slavonic Josephus was defended in 1926 as authentic by Robert Eisler and was later supported by George Williamson. Robert Van Voorst states that apart from Eisler's controversial book and Williamson statements, "no strong defense has been made" for the authenticity of the Slavonic Josephus. Henry Leeming states that Eisler at times used insufficiently substantiated material which were then discredited. Leeming adds that Eisler's philological attempts to reverse translate from Old Russian to Greek were shown to be "extremely flimsy". Van Voorst states that the contents of the passages in the Slavonic Josephus show that "they are Christian compositions and that they do not provide an authentic textual alternative to the main Testomonium Flavianum".
Steven B. Bowman states that the consideration of the Slavonic Josephus should be removed from the scholarly discussions of the first century, for it only pertains to the Macedonian elements of the 10th and 11th centuries. The Cambridge History of Judaism states that the Slavonic version includes statements which Josephus could have hardly written, and that recent scholarly opinion dismisses the Slavonic Josephus as less than authentic, but an 11th century creation as an idealogical struggle against the Khazars. Van Voorst states that the Slavonic Josephus at times focuses on blaming Pilate and the Jews, to the point of suggesting that the Jews and not the Romans crucified Jesus.
Louis Feldman states the question "is Josephus the author of the additions and modifications in the Slavonic version" has usually received a negative answer. Craig A Evans states that although some scholars had in the past supported the Slavonic Josephus, "to my knowledge no one today believes that they contain anything of value for Jesus research".
G. A. Wells has argued that the existence of Christian interpolations within the Slavonic version of the Jewish War prove that other works of Josephus also contain Christian interpolations. In 1948 Solomon Zeitlin stated that "There is no passage in Josephus which mentions Jesus" and "The Slavonic Josephus which is a paraphrase of Josephus's Wars of the Jews, was composed for the purpose of giving a Christian version of Josephus in Greek. Hence we find in it many Christian interpolations."
See also
References
- Louis Feldman, Steve Mason (1999). Flavius Josephus. Brill Academic Publishers.
- ^ Josephus, Judaism and Christianity by Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata 1997 ISBN 9004085548 pages 55-57 Cite error: The named reference "FeldHata55" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Josephus: The Essential Works by Flavius Josephus and Paul L. Maier 1995 ISBN 082543260X page 285
- Josephus: The Essential Works by Flavius Josephus and Paul L. Maier 1995 ISBN 082543260X page 12
- L. Michael White, From Jesus To Christianity, page 97 (HarperOne, 2005). ISBN 978-0-06-081610-0
- Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata, Josephus, The Bible, and History, page 431 (E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1988). ISBN 90-04-08931-4. Quote: "We may add that the fact that in the passage in the War parallel to the one in the Antiquities about Pilate there is no mention of Jesus, despite the fact the account of Pilate in the War is almost as full as the version in the Antiquities, corroborates our suspicion that there was either no passage about Jesus in the original text of the Antiquities or that it had a different form."
- ^ Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence by Robert E. Van Voorst 2000 ISBN 0802843689 page 83
- ^ Richard Bauckham "FOR WHAT OFFENSE WAS JAMES PUT TO DEATH?" in James the Just and Christian origins by Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans 1999 ISBN 9004115501 pages 199-203
- ^ Craig Evans, 2006 "Josephus on John the Baptist" in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. Princeton Univ Press ISBN 9780691009926 pages 55-58
- ^ Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside The New Testament: An Introduction To The Ancient Evidence, page 85 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000). ISBN 0-8028-4368-9
- ^ G. A. Wells, The Jesus of the early Christians, page 192 (Pemberton Books, 1971). ISBN 0301-71014-7
- Charles H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist (SCM Press, 1964), reviewed in Journal of Biblical Literature by Charles E. Carlston (Volume 84, Number 2, June 1965, pages 208-209).
- ^ Jewish Traditions in Early Christian Literature (Vol 2) by H. Schreckenberg and K. Schubert 1992 ISBN 9023226534 pages 38-41
- ^ The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum and Charles L Quarles 2009 ISBN 0805443657 pages 104-108
- ^ Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies by Craig A. Evans 2001 ISBN 0391041185 page 316
- ^ Jesus and the oral Gospel tradition by Henry Wansbrough 2004 ISBN 0567040909 page 185
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume 1, page 61 (Yale University Press, 2009). ISBN 978-0300140965
- Shlomo Pines, An Arabic version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its implications, pages 8-10, 16 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Arts and Humanities, 1971).
- Geza Vermes, "The Jesus Notice of Josephus Re-examined", in Journal of Jewish Studies (volume 38, issue 1, 1987).
- Paul Winter, "Josephus on Jesus and James", in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.- A.D. 135), edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973; Excursus II, p. 437)
- James H. Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism: New Light From Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (Doubleday, 1988)
- Claudia Setzer, Jewish Responses to Early Christians: history and Polemics, 30-150 C.E., pages 106–107 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). ISBN 978-0800626808
- Steven Bowman, "Jewish Responses to Byzantine Polemics from the Ninth through the Eleventh Centuries" , in Zev Garber (editor), The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation, pages 186-187 (Purdue University Press, 2011). ISBN 978-1-55753-579-5
- J. Spencer Kennard, Jr., "Gleanings from the Slavonic Josephus Controversy", The Jewish Quarterly Review, (New Series, Volume 39, number 2, October 1948), page 164; with Kennard citing the article "Jean-Baptiste et Jésus suivant Josèphe" by Salomon Reinach referencing Thomas Gale in Revue des Études Juives, volume LXXXVII, n° 174 (avril-juin 1929); pages 113-136 . Reprinted in Amalthée: Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, Tome II (Paris: Libraire Ernest Leroux. 1930-1931), pages 314-342.
- Steve Mason (editor), Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 9, Life of Josephus, Translation and Commentary by Steve Mason, page LI, (Brill, Leiden; 2001). ISBN 90-04-11793-8
- Josephus: all the Manuscripts
- ^ Early Christian Life and Thought in Social Context by Mark Harding 2003 Sheffield Academic Press ISBN 0826456049 page 317
- ^ Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition by John Painter 2005 ISBN 0567041913 pages 134-141
- Josephus: The Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 Text at Wikisource
- Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible 2000 ISBN 9053565035 page 670
- A History of the Holy Eastern Church by John Mason Neale 2003 ISBN 1593330456 pages 2-3
- James Carleton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity, page 192 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). ISBN 978-3-16-150312-2
- ^ The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young 2006 ISBN 0521812399 page 297
- ^ John Painter: "Who was james?" in The brother of Jesus: James the Just and his mission by Bruce Chilton, Jacob Neusner 2004 ISBN 0814651526 pages 126
- The Jewish War of Flavius Josephus: A New Translation Book IV. (Boston: John P. Jewett and Company, 1858). Available from Google Books
- Clemens Thoma, "The High Priesthood in the Judgment of Josephus", in Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata (editors), Josephus, The Bible, And History, pages 212-213 (E. J. Brill, Leiden; 1988). ISBN 90-04-08931-4
- ^ The Historical Jesus by Gary R. Habermas 1996 ISBN 0899007325 pages 33-37
- ^ Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia, Volume 1 by James Leslie Houlden 2003 ISBN 1576078566 page 660
- George Albert Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, (1986) Pemberton Publishing Co., p. 11
- James D.G. Dunn, 1985 The Evidence for Jesus ISBN 0664246982 page 29
- Familiar stranger: an introduction to Jesus of Nazareth by Michael James McClymond 2004 ISBN 0802826806 page 163
- G.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth, Open Court 1999, ISBN 0812693922
- Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence by Robert E. Van Voorst 2000 ISBN 0802843689 page 14
- Claudia Setzer, "Jewish Responses to Believers in Jesus", in Amy-Jill Levine, Marc Z. Brettler (editors), The Jewish Annotated New Testament, page 577 (New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 2011). ISBN 978-0195297706
- James Carleton Paget, Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity, page 192, footnote 28 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). ISBN 978-3-16-150312-2
- Carl Clemen, "Josephus and Christianity", page 366. The Biblical World, Volume 25, Number 5 (May, 1905).
- G. A. Wells, The Jesus Legend, page 54 (Carus Publishing Company, 1997). ISBN 0-8126-9334-5
- Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, 5, 2 Text at Wikisource
- ^ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 1982 ISBN 0802837824 pages 694-695
- ^ The Emergence of Christianity: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective by Cynthia White 2010 ISBN 0800697472 page 48
- The relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth by Daniel S. Dapaah 2005 ISBN 0761831096 page 48
- Herod Antipas by Harold W. Hoehner 1983 ISBN 0310422515 pages 125-127
- ^ Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.
- Clare K. Rothschild, "Echo of a Whisper": The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus' Witness to John the Baptist, in David Hellholm, Tor Vegge, A~yvind Norderval, Christer Hellholm (editors), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, pages 257 and 258 (Walter de Gruyter, 2011). ISBN 978-3-11-024751-0
- For example, Léon Herrmann, Chrestos, Témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme: du premier siècle, (Bruxelles, Latomus, 1970).
- The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier ISBN 0825429242 pages 662-663
- Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia, Volume 1 by James Leslie Houlden 2003 ISBN 1576078566 pages 508-509
- Women in scripture by by Carol Meyers, Toni Craven and Ross Shepard Kraemer 2001 ISBN 0802849628 pages 92-93
- Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources by Morten H. Jensen 2010 ISBN 978-3-16-150362-7 pages 42-43
- ^ Judaism and Hellenism reconsidered by Louis H. Feldman 2006 ISBN 9004149066 pages 330-331
- ^ Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible 2000 ISBN 9053565035 page 842
- ^ Herodias: at home in that fox's den by Florence Morgan Gillman 2003 ISBN 0814651089 pages 25-31
- Herod the Great by Jerry Knoblet 2005 ISBN 0761830871 pages 15-17
- Herod Antipas by Harold W. Hoehner 1983 ISBN 0310422515 page 131]
- Claudia Setzer, "Jewish Responses to Believers in Jesus", in Amy-Jill Levine, Marc Z. Brettler (editors), The Jewish Annotated New Testament, page 576 (New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press, 2011). ISBN 978-0195297706
- Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 Text at Wikisource
- Paul L. Maier, The New Complete Works of Josephus, page 662 (Kregel Publications, 1999). ISBN 0-8254-2924-2
- Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History, page 336 (Kregel Publications, 2007). ISBN 978-0-8254-3307-8
- James Leslie Houlden, Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Entries A - J, Volume 1, page 510 (ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2003). ISBN 1-57607-856-6
- ^ Jesus in the Jewish World by Geza Vermes 2011 ISBN 0334043794 pages 33-44
- William Whiston, The New Complete Works of Josephus, Kregel Academic, 1999. p 662
- McGiffert, Arthur Cushman. "Paragraph 7 of "Chapter XI.—Testimonies in Regard to John the Baptist and Christ" from Book I of Eusebius' "The Church History."". Retrieved 2007-08-12. (From the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 1, edited by Philip Schaff.)
- Feldman (1989), p. 431
- Heinz Schreckenberg, Kurt Schubert, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity, page 58 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992). ISBN 90-232-2653-4
- Heinz Schreckenberg, Kurt Schubert, page 57.
- Michael J. Cook, "Jewish Perspectives on Jesus", in Delbert Burkett (editor), The Blackwell Companion to Jesus, page 216 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). ISBN 978-1-4051-9362-7
- Edwin M. Yamauchi, Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence? p. 212.
- James Leslie Houlden, Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. Entries A - J, Volume 1, page 510 (ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2003). ISBN 1-57607-856-6
- Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside The New Testament: An Introduction To The Ancient Evidence, pages 88; 104 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000). ISBN 0-8026-4368-9
- The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament by Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum 2009 ISBN 9780805443653 pages 105-107
- Recovering Jesus by Thomas Yoder Neufeld 2007 ISBN 1587432021 page 40
- Studying the historical Jesus: a guide to sources and methods by Darrell L. Bock 2002 ISBN 080102451X page 55
- The quest for the plausible Jesus: the question of criteria by Gerd Theissen, Dagmar Winter 2002 ISBN 0664225373 page 14
- Jewish responses to early Christians by Claudia Setzer 1994 ISBN 080062680X page 106
- Claudia Setzer "Jewish Responses to believers in Jesus" in The Jewish Annotated New Testament by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Z. Brettler 2011 ISBN 0195297709 page 579
- Journey from Texts to Translations by Paul D. Wegner 2004 ISBN 0801027993 page 133
- On the Testimonium Flavianum S. G. F. Brandon commented: "if it had been written by Josephus, must surely mean that he himself was a Christian or at least admitted to the truth of the Christian case. There is reason for thinking however, that this account was either a Christian interpolation or an emendation of something unpalatable that Josephus had actually written about Jesus. The fascination of the problem lies in the fact, which we have noted, that Josephus was eminently well placed for knowing the origins of Christianity; and the value of his testimony as an independent witness would be immense, if it could be recovered." Cited from S.G.F. Brandon (editor), Religion In Ancient History: Studies In Ideas, Men and Events, page 309 (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1969). ISBN 0-04-2000020-5
- Steven Bowman, "Jewish Responses to Byzantine Polemics from the Ninth through the Eleventh Centuries" , in Zev Garber (editor), The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation, pages 185-186 (Purdue University Press, 2011). ISBN 978-1-55753-579-5
- J. Neville Birdsall, "The Continuing Enigma of Josephus's Testimony about Jesus", pages 609-622, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library (1984-1985).
- ^ John Martin Creed "The Slavonic Version of Josephus' History of the Jewish War", The Harvard Theological Review Vol. 25, No. 4, Oct., 1932
- ^ Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version by Flavius Josephus, Henry Leeming, Lyubov V. Osinkina, Katherine Leeming 2003 ISBN 9004114386 pages 1-4
- >The new complete works of Josephus by Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, Paul L. Maier 1999 ISBN 082542948X page 11
- ^ Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing' ISBN 0802843689 pages 87-88
- Steven B. Bowman "Josephus in Byzantium" in Josephus, Judaism and Christianity by Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata 1997 ISBN 9004085548 pages 373-374
- The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 3: The Early Roman Period by William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy 2000 ISBN 0521243777 page 918
- Josephus, Judaism and Christianity by Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata 1997 ISBN 9004085548 page 339
- Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans 1998 ISBN 9004111425 page 451
- Solomon Zeitlin, "The Hoax of the 'Slavonic Josephus'", in The Jewish Quarterly Review, pages 172, 177; October 1948, New Series, Vol. 39, No. 2
External links
- "Jewish Light on the Risen Lord", New Oxford Review, by Frederick W. Marks
- "Jesus in the eyes of Josephus" by Geza Vermes.
Jesus | |
---|---|
Chronology of Jesus's life |
|
New Testament | |
Historicity | |
Depictions | |
Christianity | |
In other faiths | |
Family |
|
Related | |
Christianity | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bible (Scriptures) | |||||||||
Foundations | |||||||||
History (timeline) (spread) |
| ||||||||
Denominations (list, members) |
| ||||||||
Theology | |||||||||
Philosophy | |||||||||
Other features |
| ||||||||